frankly implausible for intact systems to have 'evolved' en mass; such as the circulatory system. When the first organism effectively mutated something into a blood cell, how long did that organism carry that blood cell until cells for veins magically evolved? And how many veins evolved at once? and then there's the issue of a heart - once things like lungs eventually or magically started to mutate into something evolutionary-beneficial. If you want to believe in magic, keep believing somehow these complex systems somehow happened. If you believe in truth, understand these things had to have been designed as a system - and if you don't believe the latter, imagine your first trip to Mars 1000 years from now and finding a few little robots sitting in the sand - I doubt you'd believe those robots magically evolved from the surrounding elements.
Yet another fallacious appeal to authority! Evolution has NOTHING to do with the ORIGIN of life. How many times does that have to be explained?
There is nothing "magical" about cellular respiration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration Once cells evolved the process of photosynthesis they bioengineered the entire planet to the mix of gases we currently have in our atmosphere. When you take the time to discover how the processes all work together there is no "magic" involved. Just a step by step process to build upon the survival traits that worked best in those environments.
That's a different topic. I'm talking about there be no reasonable answer as to why a single blood cell was 'allowed' to remain - with no evolutionary advantage - before cells for veins were magically appearing...then we can talk lungs and stuff too... Of course - those robots on Mars must have just magically evolved too. You know..."things must have just happened perfectly!" - the same reasoning for folks who like the fake-science of macroevolution.
There is an amazing similarity between a chlorophyll cell and blood cell. If plant cells could appear in abundance because of the evolutionary advantage it obviously only takes a relatively minor change to become a blood cell. In evolutionary terms there were probably adaptions to all of the chemical combinations over time but it was only that were beneficial that survived. So to allege that there was "no evolutionary advantage" is fallacious since both cell types not only occurred but thrived in whichever species the adaption occurred in.
I'm not a creationist. Desist with the name calling and childishness. I've not dismissed any evidence. Everything you've put up strengthens my case. Please, put up some evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species and not complete species of their own.
Nope. I'm not. I'm totally about science. You on the other hand must be afraid of the truth, since you can't produce any evidence supporting your beliefs. Put up or shut up.
You'd think the fossil record would produce the answer. It doesn't. Maybe they came from outer space as suggested by Fredrick Hoyle, the world renowned astrophysicist. What does this have to do with the fact that there is no evidence to support evolution? All the evolutionists have is extrapolation with artistic renderings to make it look feasible.
By transition you must mean a complete species here and another over there but absolutely no fossil record of them gradually transitioning of them transitioning from one to another. At any rate, the ERV is a virus. Virus aren't new and, depending upo the type of virus, you'll find them in different species.
Not true. You can't support your case so you must try these red herring tactics to avoid the facts. You've haven't explained anything.
I'm not lying. You've yet to provide any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. When are you going to do so? Do you disagree with Darwin? All you, or anyone else, have provided are complete species with no evidence they came from another. Where is that evidence?
So...some one or some thing is bringing animals to Earth periodically as they die off. That when the previous elephant-like creature died out...this whatever schlepped half a trillion miles just to drop off the "New and Improved Elephant Mark-23 with larger ears, power windows, antilock brakes and Go-Faster stripes" Oh yeah, that's loads more plausible than Evolution! There is evidence, but you're unwilling to accept it unless you see with your very own eyes a creature transmorphing into another animal right in front of you . Which survey says!...Is something completely not what evolution is about. We have transitional fossils, we have creatures with atavistic traits, we have an entire scientific community who is convinced that Evolution is a thing and is the best explanation that can be demonstrated enough times to explain how the critters that are here today came to be. When you say "What proof is there for Evolution?" we supply our evidence. When we ask "Well if not for evolution, how do you explain it?" you supply "Don't know, don't care." or...
Several people have provided evidence for evolution (fossil record;etc.) multiple times; to claim otherwise is to lie. You OTOH have yet to offer a scientific argument that supports your objection/s against the evidence.. . The only argument/s you have consistently made amount to nuh uh. I call that acting "childish".
Did you respond about ERVs yet? I'm intrigued to hear your explanation for them if it isn't a result of common ancestry.
Exactly. He asks for evidence and we give it. He just chooses to not even give it a once over since it does not fall within his scope of belief.
Thank you for tacitly admitting that you lack the comprehension necessary in order to understand even the most basic of scientific principles.
Please, show me a species that has a record of gradually transitioning into another species. Nobody has provided any evidence. Only the so-called transitional species have been shown and they are show no evidence of coming from any other species.
Actually it's you who show a lack of even the most basic scientific principles. You must believe if you say it then it's true. Well, sorry to burst your bubble but you've yet to be right about anything on this thread. Now, back to your worst nightmare. You have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever of a species gradually transitioning into another species. You certainly do put up quite a lot of myths and legends.
We have. We have posted the same scientific evidence that the scientific community uses as the basis for the theory of evolution. We have explained what the theory of evolution is. We have even defined what a theory is. You...chose not to believe something that the vast majority of the scientific community has put forward. That is your choice. You can believe what the heck you wish to believe. Which is a hell of a lot more than you have put forth, which to date is "Well #@$%ed if I know how we have species that exist now that didn't back then! And @#$%ed if I care!" Well...no. I do take that back. You did at one point (post #434 in this thread) suggest "aliens" when you said " Maybe they came from outer space as suggested by Fredrick Hoyle, the world renowned astrophysicist." But that loses some credit as his theory is against abiogenesis stating that the processes that formed the initial proto-lifeforms came from Outer Space and did not happen on the Earth as the more popular theory states. His theory does not explain how we ended up with a diverse number of species that exist now that didn't exist back then. The problem here and the one that I think everyone is having with you and your stance is that we're being presented with two sides of the argument. On one hand, we have a vast scientific community that has studies the fossil record and has tons of papers and evidence and species with atavistic traits (snakes with legs, whale skeletons with hip bones, etc)... ...and on the other we have someone saying "It's not true...but I can't/won't provide evidence to substantiate my claim." Imagine yourself in our position. Say you're on a jury of a murder trial. The prosecution has partial fingerprints at the scene, eyewitnesses, shoe impressions in the soil outside the window, a receipt for duct tape like the kind used in the murder purchased just a few hours previously. The defense has an unsubstantiated alibi. To you, which one has more weight? That's very similar to what we are looking at from you. Science provides evidence, you provide none. And you're surprised that we don't just immediately jump onto the "Evolutionary Science is a lie!" bandwagon?
