Replies

"Can you point to anything in existance that is changing from one species to another species?"

Individual organisms do not change. Populations of organisms change. If you cull any small bit of information from this post, let it be that. After all, you are clearly different from your father, as your father was different from his.

This "transitional" tag attached to fossils is only an affair of humanity. Quoth Wikipedia: "According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight."

Finally, I have a question of my own: Did you read the article itself, or just the summary?

Can you point to anything in existance that is changing from one species to another species?" Individual organisms do not change. Populations of organisms change. If you cull any small bit of information from this post, let it be that. After all, you are clearly different from your father, as your father was different from his.

Double-talk.

We are different within the same species-man.

What evolutionists have to show is a change from one species into another higher one for evolution to be true.

Creationists never argue against changes within species, but that even with those changes, they stay in their own 'kind' (birds are still birds, fish still fish, men are still men)

This "transitional" tag attached to fossils is only an affair of humanity. Quoth Wikipedia: "According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight."

LOL!

I like how you guys like to readjust the critera to make it fit your own system.

For it to be hindsight, you would have to show that the species changed from one species to another, not conjecture about it might have happened!

Evolution is species changing into other species of a higher order.

You have to show that is even possible, no less that it actually happened.

All you guys do is find a species that has some unusual charateristics for that species and start making up stories on how it became that way.

You are not proving anything, which is what science is suppose to do, you are just 'begging the question', saying 'evolution is true and here is how it must have happened.

Evolutionists and Creationists share one attribute-faith.

Finally, I have a question of my own: Did you read the article itself, or just the summary?

I read the link you gave me.

Now unless you can show that the fish was in a stage of transition,(a semi-fish), it is just another meaningless evolutionist attempt to cover up their lack of true evidence.

I bet you were really disappointed when you found out that those 'feathers' on that dinosaur were not really feathers.

But even if they had been, so what?

It would not have proven that dinosaurs' morphed into birds.

...After all, you are clearly different from your father, as your father was different from his.

Not to sound clintonesque but but what do you mean by "as"? Do you mean "as" as "like" or do you mean "as" as different to the same degree? If you are using "as" with the latter definition, then I don't agree. It is not clear that I am more or less different from my father than we was from his. I guess you could try to quantify the differences by using DNA but even then I suspect that you would find varying degrees of difference for each set of individuals. I believe that one might be more like their great great great great grandfather than they are like their father. It's reasonable to believe that ancestry has more of a web structure than a dendridic structure. The same individual could be your ancestor on multiple branches in multiple generations. I wonder if every single organsim in history, excluding twins and other multiples, has absolutely unique DNA. We'll never know because we don't have all the data.