disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less

[one.opinion]

23 minutes ago, Billiards Ball said:

I'm denying mechanistic evolution in 1) and not theistic evolution.

Oh good, we are in agreement here then!

[Billiards Ball]

Just now, one.opinion said:

Oh good, we are in agreement here then!

Not quite, I think theistic evolution is untrue. But then again, my argument from silence in 3) has to with billions of fossils extant without a single intra-species transition fossil!

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, Billiards Ball said:

Not quite, I think theistic evolution is untrue. But then again, my argument from silence in 3) has to with billions of fossils extant without a single intra-species transition fossil!

Sorry, got prematurely excited about someone agreeing with me :-P I would argue against a random, unguided, "roll-of-the-dice" evolution.

There are estimates that maybe a billion+ fossils exist, but the documented number is much lower. Additionally, think about this in terms of the number of organisms that have ever lived on the plants. Even billions is a tiny fraction of those. I get what you say now about the transitional fossils, and wing evolution does present something of a problem. Here is an article talking a bit about this problem (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13683-evolution-myths-half-a-wing-is-no-use/), and I find it a somewhat weak argument. It would be nice to talk about this further with a real paleontologist. You are, however, ignoring the cetacean evolution discussed earlier in this thread if you claim there are no fossils that represent intra-species transition.

[Billiards Ball]

Bu "intra-species" I meant "within one species", with zero fossils, ever. I'm aware that scientists like to put similar species together to show transition between different species.

But a wing requires multiple changes at once, which is why the article was to me, evasive, not convincing.

Examples abound: it takes 30 proteins to clot human blood. My liver has 500 known functions. There is no way a heart evolved independently of lungs or vice versa. Scientists are excited, now that it is thought to take only 140,000 years to evolve a simple eye, without connecting that eye to a brain to receive signal.

Cetacean evolution is a bad example: https://creation.com/a-whale-of-a-tale - that one article alone is enough to make me realize what a hoax modern palentology is.

[BeyondET]

3 hours ago, Billiards Ball said:

I'm denying mechanistic evolution in 1) and not theistic evolution.

I'm familiar with the (ever-evolving) evolutionary tree and the many supporting examples. There are no "in between" anything in fossils, ever.

There are billions of fossils extant. My local museum has 4 million fossilized specimens. There are zero examples worldwide of intermediate forms (not species), in terms of despite thousands and millions of bird fossils extant, there are no fossils with 1/2 a wing, 1/4 of a wing, 1/32 of a wing, 2/3 of a wing, etc.

Whatcha mean about  1/4 wing 1/32 wing 2/3 wing? you mean like a full grown chicken with a half size wing.

Wonder why some birds have wings but don't fly. What is the use of wings if they don't fly.

[BeyondET]

What's up with reptile, bird, human, embryo's looking the same, tails and gills.

[Billiards Ball]

On 3/16/2018 at 4:58 PM, BeyondET said:

What's up with reptile, bird, human, embryo's looking the same, tails and gills.

A good question, but you might be shocked to go online and learn how many of these 150-year-old concepts have since been debunked.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Billiards Ball said:

On 3/16/2018 at 3:58 PM, BeyondET said:

What's up with reptile, bird, human, embryo's looking the same, tails and gills.

A good question, but you might be shocked to go online and learn how many of these 150-year-old concepts have since been debunked.

What evidence would you supply that would debunk it?

[Billiards Ball]

A simple Google search will bring you many sources online--for my own college textbooks, footnotes showed that the original drawings were done more than a century before without the artist having looked at actual specimens!

[one.opinion]

38 minutes ago, Billiards Ball said:

A simple Google search will bring you many sources online--for my own college textbooks, footnotes showed that the original drawings were done more than a century before without the artist having looked at actual specimens!

It is well-known that Haeckel did indeed "cheat" quite a bit to make his drawings. However, you have provided no evidence showing that vertebrate embryos do not share morphological similarity, particularly in early embryos. You have also not provided anything showing that human embryos do not have pharyngeal arches or tails. Mentioning a google search does not actually support your argument.