Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
I certainly do. And I will tell you one big reason why the interpretation is absolutely wrong:
PRACTICALLY ALL THE SPECIES IN THE FOSSIL RECORD (EXCEPT DINOSAURS) HAVE VERY SIMILAR COUNTERPARTS STILL ALIVE TODAY. MANY OF THEM, LIKE THE SHARK, THE COELACANTH, AND OTHERS HAVE NOT CHANGED AT ALL SINCE WE FIRST FOUND EVIDENCE OF THEM.
You are darn right! Your "species" is a lower jaw and unlike the platypus has teeth! The evos further state that two teeth found in S. America, reputed to be 60 million or so years old are evidence that the platypus was alive there. The platypus has no teeth! This is just more evidence of paleontologists making up evidence to prove evolution.
What a totally contorted statement and at total misrepresentation of what was said (that is why you did not post what you were responding to). Theory proves nothing, evidence proves everything. The relationship between mammary glands and live birth is an almost necessary relationship. Unlike egglayers, live bearing animals need to feed their young till they can feed themselves. It is certainly much more of a necessary connection than mammary glands and ear bones. Yet one is untrue and the other is true (so far as we know from living species). Which just comes to prove that theory proves nothing.
Suppose you tell us Vade instead of making broad, totally unsupported attacks on your opponents?
A total lie Vade and you know it. Read below:
I can't tell you how this sounds this far along on this thread. gore3000 told me a long time ago that, for all you can tell from a fossil, there were mammary glands on dinosaurs."
1788 posted on 3/25/02 4:41 AM Pacific by VadeRetro
It seems whenever I am not around you delight in lying and misrepresenting what I said to others. It seems you are too much of a coward and too dishonest to debate the facts. Even your buddy Junior called you a third stringer for evolution. Personally, I think that was undeserved praise.
Prove me wrong instead of sliming me when I am not around. If you could you would not resort to such low, despicable tactics.
Circular reasoning is not logic. To prove a theory through something whose only proof is the theory itself is circular logic. That is what paleontology is - circular logic - a bone proves evolution because the theory of evolution says what the bone should be.
Birds came from a line of reptiles.
And the proof? None at all. I have been asking for proof of such macro-evolution for over a year on these threads - and have yet to see it. All you do is repeat the same mantra - just like the Communists and the Nazis repeated the same lies on and on hoping people would believe them to be true. Prove it instead of constantly asserting that evolution is true because the facts must fit evolution.
What a proof of evolution! So tell us, what kind of tree is this? A pear tree, a mimosa, an oak tree? We are dying to know. Is it the same tree Noah built his ark from? It seems to have enough branches to fit all creation in it!
Well, for the eye for example we have Euglena. Remember Euglena, the plant/animal I posted about that had an eye? The one the evolutionists here do not want to talk about? Tell us, did the eye of the Euglena descend from a bird, a man, or a platypus? Or perhaps it was the other way around? The eye of man descended from Euglena through plants and animals which never had eyes. Let's see your double-talk on this, I need a good laugh.
I refuted that statement to you some 500 posts back. Here's the answer again since it seems you have forgotten it:
However, there is a problem with it. When we mapped the human genome, two companies did it. Only 1/5 of the genes they identified were the same. I am not sure that the chimp genome has been studied even better than man. So first of all, I am very suspicious of that statement. Secondly, that would be an example of devolution - making a species less fit. Mutations seem to do that. Thirdly, I do not know how large that gene is, but if is like most genes 500 or some base pairs long, that one mutation made it unworkable in both man and chimp is not to be wondered at. It is a slim chance, but not an impossible coincidence. Lastly, the genes of different species are never the same even if they code for the same function. That is why the sperm of one species will not impregnate another species, why the blood of one species cannot be used on another species, why the legs of one species are not the same as those of another species, etc.
I showed you Euglena, an extanct bacterial like animal/plant with an eye. Kindly explain the descent to or from that eye - if you can!
Sounds like devolution to me!
Oh my, it has its own branch in the tree! How wonderful! He must be proof of evolution since hey, how can he have a branch otherwise? I mean, who would be caddish enough to say that some evolutionist trying to prove his theory just drew another branch on a tree! We all know they would not do that! These are real scientists!
You keep repeating the same garbage but give no proof of it Vade. Time to show the proof or will I have to wait a year for it like I have been waiting for the proof of macro-evolution?
Proof positive you have absolutely no idea of what the real theory of evolution states. The framework predicts that mammals, and only mammals -- the warm-blooded critters with three ear bones, differentiated dentiture, a couple of special holes in their heads, who descended from mammal-like reptiles -- will have mammary glands.
Sorry, Vade, but the boy just flat-out showed he did not know of that which he was talking. Of course, I'm not quite sure even hitting him over the head like this is going to be enough of a hint.
You see, this is what separates science from religion, evolution from ID or creationism. With science, one can build a framework from which one can make predictions (birds will never have mammary glands). By their very nature, these predictions must be falsifiable (if a bird with mammary glands is found, the framework is crap). ID and creationism simply state "God did it the way He did it, and no one is to second guess Him." Under either of the latter there is no way to make any predictions about what one should find in nature because God might have done just about anything that caught His fancy (all those mythical half-this/half-that critters come to mind). And, because there is no way to make any predictions there is no potential falsification -- and a theory MUST be falsifiable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.