Posted on 12/18/2013 10:11:55 AM PST by null and void
If you mean what came first, poop or toilets, I’m going with poop.
Yes. But dramatic changes such as genetic mutations causing sickle-shaped blood cells (that offer advantages in certain selection conditions) occur with less smoother continuity.
That smelly comment reminds me of something I saw here recently
Yes, the old flat earth accusations....question the crackpot theory, and inevitably that one comes up.
Tiresome.
What does sickle cell has to do with the rarity of fossils.
Don’t know where you saw an accusation in my post, wasn’t there.
What one believes to be true has no bearing on what actually is true and the example given quite often is the one I provided only because it’s usually easy for someone to understand the analogy.
Sickle cells resulted from a rare genetic mutation that offered certain survival advantages to the population it occurs in. In evolutionary time, it is a sudden appearance. A more dramatic transition, if you will. Connect this with the rarity of transitional fossils with suddenly-appeared (in evolutionary time) dramatic features on them.
Evolution has “withstood” nothing. It has existed, has hung on, never dying, despite the lack of support in the fossil record and the lack of proof of the whole mess. And the reason for this dogged belief, against all logic, is the refusal to believe in...what did you call them...”creation myths”, I think.
You want me to provide proof of my claim-—are you kidding, LOL? You act as though evolution is fact, settled science, and questioning it is heresy. YOU provide proof-—incontrovertible, settled proof-—that evolution is true. If you do, the secular world will celebrate you; no one has been able to do it yet.
No.
Sudden appearance? Well, kinda, I guess, maybe, not sure really, never researched it in detail to be honest.
Whether the mutation appeared suddenly or the conditions that increased mortality rates in those that didn’t have it appeared suddenly the mutation increased the chances to survive and reproduce.
This still has nothing to do with fossils and the conditions needed to for them to form or their transitional nature. If the only connection is the concept of time, surely a better analogy would work here, if you needed one at all.
At the risk of being rude, you just wrote two paragraphs of complete falsehoods.
You made the claim that there are many evolutionary scientists doubt the facts of evolution. You suggested a bit of simple research will bear that out. That is a very straightforward and simple claim that you made. I merely asked you to provide me a link or two supporting this assertion. After all, you called it “simple.”
Evolution, on the other hand, is hardly simple. It is massive. Huge. Monumental. And its core tenets form the whole of biology today. So when you challenge me to “provide evidence,” while I’d be happy to do so, it is not like creationism. It cannot be summed up with, “God did it.” So please, be more specific. What species or morphological feature or fossil gives you the most trouble?
Creationists like to play the game of dumping 4,000 random things that they think support their cause, never pausing to realize that each of those 4,000 things has decades, if not centuries, of scientific work to understand the evolution of those things. Things which often occurred over many tens or hundreds of thousands of years.
Like I said, it’s hard. So again, let’s get specific. What’s one of the things off the top of your head that you just simply cannot - or will not - accept is evidence of evolution?
Credibility, or credulity?
Fossils are typically more common when the once-living entities creating them are more populous.
Your unwillingness to accept over-whelming scientific scholarship by denying it’s existence, when something as simple as a google search could provide reading material and evidence for years is not a strong indicator of what is or is not true.
That’s a basic math calculation. I haven’t seen anyone making the claim you seem to be arguing against here.
but that’s all just a conspiracy.
You see.
Everything is man, everything.
Exactly which theory of evolution are you talking about? =>
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839540/posts?page=22#22
Re: Ann Coulter:
No science is ever frightening to Christians. Religious people dont need the science to come out any particular way on IQ or AIDS or sex differences any more than they need the science to come out any particular way on evolution...If evolution is true, then God created evolution. ... Although God-believers dont need evolution to be false, athiests need evolution to be true. . Ann Coulter (from her 2006 book, Godless)
<>
Undeniable truth of life # 23. Evolution cannot explain Creation. Rush Limbaugh (1980s)
...evolution does take place, but it doesnt explain Creation. Obviously, it cant .. Rush Limbaugh Facts, Science Smash the Global Warming Myth February 28, 2007
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.