Last I heard Giant Pandas have trouble reproducing even with their own kind.
So you're saying that each panda is a different species? How so.
Dragonflies:
“S. sahlbergi is a single species.
As I showed you earlier, one of many species of dragonflies belonging to a genus (Somatochlora), which is one of many genera of dragonflies in the family of dragonflies belonging to the family Corduliidae, which is one of several families belonging to the order of dragonflies, Odonata. Did you honestly think on species of dragonfly is the only species of dragonfly?
These bees can interbreed, and produce viable offspring; which makes them the same species. All honeybees are one kind of animal created by God in full form.
Some species of honeybees can interbreed. But just as in bears, some can, and some can't. What's the difference?
The difference is one reason we know common descent is true. You see, if it was false, we'd see nice, clean distinctions between species. But as Darwin pointed out, and geneticists have confirmed, we have all sorts of intermediate stages, half-species, quarter-species, and so on. It's a continuing embarrassment for creationists.
Precambrian Jellyfish show that creationists are wrong about the Cambrian explosion:
“Jellyfish come from one of the oldest branches on the animal family tree, the phylum Cnidaria, which includes corals and anemones. Jellyfish were probably the first muscle-powered swimmers in the open ocean. They appeared in the late Precambrian Era, a period of major geologic and ecological changes that preceded the Cambrian explosion of animal life.”
It's not just jellyfish. We see Precambrian arthropod/worm transitionals, trilobite transitionals, and so on. Again, it demolishes the creationist story that complex life just suddenly appeared in the Cambrian.
What is “dinosaur-like” about this bird’s skull?
No fenestration behind the orbits, dinosaur formed condyles at the back of the skull, for example.
Beaks first evolved in dinosaurs; Psittacosaurus was a small ceratopsian dinosaur with a robust beak.
and fully developed feathers on its head!
We see feathers formed on dinosaurs before birds evolved. You've just provided more evidence for birds evolving from dinosaurs.
A breast bone is a bird’s breastbone.
No. Dinosaurs also have breastbones. Just smaller ones than those of birds. So that's transitional between birds and dinosaurs.
[quote“All too few people seem to realise that birds have hands*; it's just that these parts of the body are - normally - mostly obscured from view by the feathers.[/quote]
And are fused together, unlike those of early birds. The change was gradual:
This is obviously a fossil of a bird,
As I showed you it's a bird, or very close to a bird, with a few dinosaur features not seen in modern birds.
and you cannot deny that. The fact remains there were fully developed birds found in the same fossil layers as the dinosaur,
Birds only evolved from one kind of dinosaur; there are dinosaur fossils in earlier deposits than there are birds.
“A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany.”
No, that's wrong. The first person to suggest a link was Thomas Huxley, based on the skulls of birds. He predicted that we would find transitionals between dinosaurs and birds. And his prediction was confirmed many times.
Schools still teach modern birds descended from the archaeopteryx,
No, you're wrong again. Are you beginning to realize that not knowing what you're talking about is a serious handicap for you? Archie is very close to the actual line that leads to birds, but it's an offshoot, not an ancestor of birds. And no scientist would say that it is an ancestor of birds.
There are no links between species, and it’s obvious that the evidence in the fossil record supports creation all while discrediting evolution theory.
Many of your fellow creationists disagree with you. Dr. Kurt Wise lists dozens of them. Want to see that, again?
So, Barbie;
Where are the transitional fossils?
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Kurt Wise,
Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
You ask me to tell you two forms of life that are supposed to be linked through evolution,
...which don't have a transitional form between them. There are many, many major groups said to be connected; as you see, Dr. Wise shows a large number that have transitionals. Can you find even one that doesn't?
but there are none I can recall
We're still missing a few, but the fact that you can't think of even one of them (and that your fellow creationist lists dozens of them) explains why creationists are a dying breed.
I mean, give some credit to your belief system, and tell me which two you think are linked.
Pick any of those cited by your fellow creationist.
Dr. Wise can. And he actually knows what he's talking about.
I mean, look at this evolution diagram called the Tree of Life.
Actually, the "tree of life" was first prepared by Linnaeus, who didn't know about evolution.
Where are the intermediate animals?
Ask Dr. Wise. He lists dozens.
Proving truth is possible with evidence for it.
No. Proof requires logical certainty. Evidence is inductive, only providing a degree of likelihood. Often it's such a degree that it would be foolish to deny it. But proof is deductive.
Proving creation is easy with fossil evidence; yet, proving evolution with that same evidence is impossible.
Your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise, disagrees with you. Would you like to see that, again?
Dr. Wise is right, you're wrong. But then Dr. Wise actually knows what he's talking about.
