The fossil record shows there never was evolution.

[genuineoriginal]

This is why your definition is wrong. This is an assumption on your part goes far beyond what you claim Kose did with his definition.

It is not a definition.
Do you need to be reminded of what a definition is?

_____
definition
the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc., as found in dictionaries.​

Since I am not providing the meaning of a phrase, I am not giving a definition.

I am giving a statement of fact.
The fact is that any change in DNA significant enough for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal will always result in the production of non-fertile animals.
There will be no fertile animals that will be able to propagate those changes to any new generations.

 

[CabinetMaker]

It is not a definition.
Do you need to be reminded of what a definition is?

_____
definition
the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc., as found in dictionaries.​

Since I am not providing the meaning of a phrase, I am not giving a definition.

I am giving a statement of fact.
The fact is that any change in DNA significant enough for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal will always result in the production of non-fertile animals.
There will be no fertile animals that will be able to propagate those changes to any new generations.

If you claim that this is an established fact, then present your research. I would expect your research to address, at a minimum, the following points.

• Clear definition of what constitutes a new animal
• Definition of what a significant change in DNA is and how it is measured.
• Discussion of whether significant changes can occur in steps of if the entire gene must happen at once
• Evidence supporting that significant changes ALWAYS result in infertility

If you can't show us your research that address those points as a minimum, why should your statement be accepted as a statement of fact?

 

[CabinetMaker]

We are hoping some of you evolutionists can recognize that transitional fossils is a failed prediction.

Is it? Here we see the transitions of horse from its prehistoric form to a modern form. We see gradual transitions of leg and skull bones over a period of time. Why would those not be considered transitional fossils?

 

[CabinetMaker]

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140

Is it possible that the transitions you seek occurred at a time when there was nothing to make a fossil? Consider the most simple of organisms, not much more that a collection of a few tens or hundreds of cells. Many of these organisms would never leave a fossil. I have long speculated that the major phyla categories occurred during this period of history and we will never find a fossil of the most basic life forms that evolved into the diversity we see around us today.

 

[Jose Fly]

I like what others in this thread have said about definitions that assume the conclusion.

Then what is your definition of a "transitional fossil"?

 

[Jose Fly]

You accused us of having "no idea what a transitional fossil is

As evidenced by your collective running away from giving your own definition of "transitional fossil".

You've told us numerous times your definition of a transitional fossil. We reject their existence based on your definition.

Hilarious. You still have no idea what a "transitional fossil" is, yet you continue to assert they don't exist. :chuckle:

You gave your definition numerous times. The problem is, it assumes the truth of your Darwinism.

No it doesn't. That's just an excuse you've latched on to in order to try and avoid reality.

As I explained, it's no different than an archaeologist hypothesizing that a certain culture was influenced by Mayans, and from that predicting that Mayan artifacts would be found in that culture's remains.

Is he assuming his conclusion?

I wouldn't deny that. Why would you say I did?

Since we agree that evolutionary theory predicts the existence of transitional fossils, what do you think a transitional fossil would be?

However, it's not much of a prediction; we can line up creatures running around today to show "evolutionary progress."

Only if you're either incredibly ignorant or incredibly dishonest.

Because they don't.

How can you say that if you don't even know what a "transitional fossil" is?

We should see a broad spectrum of change between one kind and another. In fact, there should be no need to look at the fossil record.

But contrary to your desires, we do look at the fossil record. So again, what do you think we would expect to see in the fossil record under evolutionary theory?

We should examples of a fine-scale range between two distinct kinds. For example, there should be at least one example of something like a range of creatures linking the dog kind and the cat kind.

Given that you admitted to merely "guessing" that there is a "cat kind" and a "dog kind", that isn't really meaningful.

What aspect? Be specific.

Given that creationism is predicated on the existence of God, let's start there. How do we test for the existence of God?

 

[Jose Fly]

We are hoping some of you evolutionists can recognize that transitional fossils is a failed prediction.

How can you say that if you don't even know what a "transitional fossil" is?

 

[genuineoriginal]

If you claim that this is an established fact, then present your research.

It is a fact that any change in DNA significant enough for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal will always result in the production of non-fertile animals.
There will be no fertile animals that will be able to propagate those changes to any new generations.

This fact has been rejected by evolutionists because this fact destroys the entire theory of evolution.

If you can't show us your research that address those points as a minimum, why should your statement be accepted as a statement of fact?

You will never accept the truth about it, no matter what research is done.

_____
Fruit Fly, 100 Years Later

Morgan, in the book entitled The Mechanism of Mendelian Inheritance (1915) demonstrated how mutations using radiation on two-winged fruit flies resulted in four-winged fruit flies. The four-winged fruit fly was widely heralded as the earliest evidence that the first evolutionary step to produce a new species was a mutation.

The question, however, centered on whether the mutated four-winged fruit fly was a new species or an unsustainable aberrational freek. By 1963 after decades of research, the question could be answered definitively. Ernst Mayr, Charles Darwin’s twentieth century Bulldog, viewed the mutated four-winged fruit flies as “such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination.” Mutation is not the gateway to evolution.
. . .
The fruit fly as a model for evolution via mutations gets even worse—there are no “slight, successive” genetic changes even between over 1,400 closely related Drosophila species.

The number of nucleotide base pairs Drosophila species ranges from 127 to 800 million. The probability of constructing a Tree of Life with “slight, successive” changes in nucleotide base pairs from species to species approaches the realm of impossible.
. . .
Pierre-Paul Grassé, past-president of the French Academie des Sciences in the book entitked Evolution of Living Organisms concludes – “The fruit fly [Drosophila melanogaster],the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times”—evolution never happened.

No wonder genetic researchers at Bioinformatics Research Center, North Carolina State University now bring into question whether genes even play a role in evolution between related Drosophila species. Wen-Ping Hsieh and collegues published in Genetics –​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Is it? Here we see the transitions of horse from its prehistoric form to a modern form. We see gradual transitions of leg and skull bones over a period of time. Why would those not be considered transitional fossils?

Why would these not be considered different breeds of horses?

 

[Stripe]

As evidenced by your collective running away from giving your own definition of "transitional fossil".

Nope. You've provided the definition numerous times.

We don't disagree with it.

Hilarious. You still have no idea what a "transitional fossil" is, yet you continue to assert they don't exist.

Nope. You've defined it numerous times.

Perhaps you've forgotten?

No it doesn't.

Sure, it does.

Since we agree.

:chuckle:

False dichotomies are logical fallacies as well.

Only if you're either incredibly ignorant or incredibly dishonest.

I see you've got bluster. Are you up to a challenge? You show a lineup of fossils that shows evolutionary progression and we'll show a bunch of living things that could be lined up in a similar fashion.

How can you say that if you don't even know what a "transitional fossil" is?

Can't you remember your definition? :idunno:

Given that you admitted to merely "guessing" that there is a "cat kind" and a "dog kind", that isn't really meaningful.

Only because you're desperate to avoid challenges.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thanks for your time Stripe.

 

[Stripe]

Thanks for your time Stripe.

Ah, the wail of the defeated atheist.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Why would these not be considered different breeds of horses?

They ARE different breeds of horses.

Are you going to answer my question regarding transitional fossils as related to the horse now?

 

[CabinetMaker]

It is a fact that any change in DNA significant enough for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal will always result in the production of non-fertile animals.
There will be no fertile animals that will be able to propagate those changes to any new generations.

This fact has been rejected by evolutionists because this fact destroys the entire theory of evolution.


You will never accept the truth about it, no matter what research is done.

_____
Fruit Fly, 100 Years Later

Morgan, in the book entitled The Mechanism of Mendelian Inheritance (1915) demonstrated how mutations using radiation on two-winged fruit flies resulted in four-winged fruit flies. The four-winged fruit fly was widely heralded as the earliest evidence that the first evolutionary step to produce a new species was a mutation.

The question, however, centered on whether the mutated four-winged fruit fly was a new species or an unsustainable aberrational freek. By 1963 after decades of research, the question could be answered definitively. Ernst Mayr, Charles Darwin’s twentieth century Bulldog, viewed the mutated four-winged fruit flies as “such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination.” Mutation is not the gateway to evolution.
. . .
The fruit fly as a model for evolution via mutations gets even worse—there are no “slight, successive” genetic changes even between over 1,400 closely related Drosophila species.

The number of nucleotide base pairs Drosophila species ranges from 127 to 800 million. The probability of constructing a Tree of Life with “slight, successive” changes in nucleotide base pairs from species to species approaches the realm of impossible.
. . .
Pierre-Paul Grassé, past-president of the French Academie des Sciences in the book entitked Evolution of Living Organisms concludes – “The fruit fly [Drosophila melanogaster],the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times”—evolution never happened.

No wonder genetic researchers at Bioinformatics Research Center, North Carolina State University now bring into question whether genes even play a role in evolution between related Drosophila species. Wen-Ping Hsieh and collegues published in Genetics –​

So no research to back your claim. Your OPINION is noted for what it is: an opinion.

Your article about four winged fruit flies is rabbit hole. Genetic monsters have been known for some time and it is also known that if one monster occurs, there is nothing for it to mate with. Thus, nobody has ever claimed, except for the creationists, that a genetic monster is part of the evolutionary process.

 

[genuineoriginal]

They ARE different breeds of horses.

Are you going to answer my question regarding transitional fossils as related to the horse now?

You didn't show any transitional fossils, you showed fossils of different breeds of horse.

 

[Sonnet]

You didn't show any transitional fossils, you showed fossils of different breeds of horse.

Can you prove this?

 

[CabinetMaker]

You didn't show any transitional fossils, you showed fossils of different breeds of horse.

No, I didn't. the modern horse is characterized by a single toe. Early horses had three toes on the ground. The structure of the horses leg and foot evolved over time to produce the modern horse that we have today. So the fossil record has a series of fossils that show a gradual transition from three toes to one toe. Those fossils have things in common with fossils of older and younger fossils.

Said a bit differently, the breed chart you should are all modern horses and can be interbred freely. Could the modern horse have bred with an ancient horse? probably not based on the difference is size alone.

 

[genuineoriginal]

So no research to back your claim. Your OPINION is noted for what it is: an opinion.

An opinion is stating that there must be transitional fossils based on your theory that animals evolve.
A fact is stating that any change in DNA sufficient to change one kind of animal into another kind will end up in animals that are incapable of reproducing, i.e. an evolutionary dead end.

nobody has ever claimed, except for the creationists, that a genetic monster is part of the evolutionary process.

The creation of genetic monsters is the evolutionary process.
If you can't understand something as simple as that, then you may want to gracefully bow out of this conversation.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Early horses had three toes on the ground.

If you admit they are horses, why are you trying to claim they are not?

Could the modern horse have bred with an ancient horse? probably not based on the difference is size alone.

Maybe you haven't heard of the Shire and the Falabella miniature horse, both of which were on the chart I posted.

 

[Jose Fly]

Your article about four winged fruit flies is rabbit hole. Genetic monsters have been known for some time and it is also known that if one monster occurs, there is nothing for it to mate with. Thus, nobody has ever claimed, except for the creationists, that a genetic monster is part of the evolutionary process.

It's funny to see creationists citing fruit flies as evidence against evolution, since if you actually look at the science, fruit fly studies have provided valuable insight into the evolutionary mechanism behind speciation.

But then like I said before....that's kinda what creationists do. They'll insist until the day they die that black is white and up is down. That's what makes these conversations so entertaining. :chuckle: