Very sincere people make mistakes and incorrect assumptions. And unscrupulous people do make stuff up (global warming data).
No, the article in National Geographic doesn’t provide the evidence about the lizards. Nat’l Geo isn’t that kind of magazine.
National Geographic loves to print pictures. There should have at least made a sketch.
I’m sure the scientists in both cases have published their evidence somewhere. Go find it, if you’re curious.
I am not really, any more than I would be curious about someone's "abducted by aliens" story. It is your point, not mine. I am not going to help you make it.
Tiktaalik: they didn’t have B. They predicted it would be found between A and C, and it was. Testable prediction, confirmed. What were you saying about glass houses?
They are drawing the conclusion they wanted to about a lump of - something - they wanted to find. They apparently don't have a complete skeleton and they have not ruled out that it is simply another species or even that it is not alive today. You are jumping to the conclusion you want to reach.
’ve heard the “species already has the genes” argument before. I’m not impressed, because the people making it never try to identify the genes the species has beforehand and thereby predict what changes they will undergo.
Ever hear of a dog? I laugh to think of what kind of evolutionary picture you could draw of the various breeds of dogs if you were digging them up as fossils.
Yeah, nobody claims lizards change, or will change, into cats. Saying such a thing is a telltale sign of complete misunderstanding of how evolution works.
Are you saying that because some form of lizard has not been identified as a direct evolutionary ancestor of the cat?
Very sincere people make mistakes and incorrect assumptions. And unscrupulous people do make stuff up (global warming data).
And you have no reason to believe either one is happening in this case. You just don't want to believe them.
National Geographic loves to print pictures. There should have at least made a sketch.
You missed the photo? Here.
I am not going to help you make it.
It's become clear that by your rules, I will never be able to make it. Anything I find, you'll just say that they're making incorrect assumptions or are making stuff up. See "tiresome," above.
They are drawing the conclusion they wanted to about a lump of - something - they wanted to find.
See? Now you're turning fossils into "a lump of something." This is a pretty detailed "lump." But you can't acknowledge that the ToE made a successful prediction, so you have to wave that away too. And don't forget, the paleontologists who found it might have been unscrupulous--maybe they made it all up!
Are you saying that because some form of lizard has not been identified as a direct evolutionary ancestor of the cat?
No, I'm saying that because there already are cats. This is another common mistake of anti-evolutionists: the unspoken assumption that today's endpoints are the only ones available. If those lizards continue to evolve for as long as it took cats to evolve from the common ancestor of lizards and cats, they'll end up as something you've never seen before.
Here's the thing: while you and Behe are quibbling and caviling and insisting that the whole theory is going to come crashing down any day now, thousands of researchers are doing practical, productive work on the assumption that the theory is correct. That's why you saying something like "you don't have enough stuff" is kinda funny. Who cares that we don't have enough stuff to convince hopespringseternal, when entire companies are built on the successful application of the theory?
So, as the kids say, I'm outie. You can stand there commanding the tide not to come in as long as you want, but I'm not going to bother arguing for the tide any longer.
