|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,752 Likes: 20
Campfire Sage
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,752 Likes: 20 |
The claimed transitional forms in the fossil record were shown to be “not transitional” and no other credible transitional forms were noted. Where are the transitional forms? The evolutionary theorists can only come up increasingly stupid explanations for the embarrassing lack of fossil proof of evolution.
Four legged snake ancestor fossil found: Link![[Linked Image]](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/126F0/production/_84440557_martill2hr.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866 |
[For about 60 - 70 years thousands of intelligent people have tried to get chemicals to produce life and failed. What they have proven is
life can only come from life. If intelligence can't do it chance can't. Therefore the whole evolutionary faith Paradigm is built on blind faith.
You don't seem to be very intelligent, and maybe can't read well. As has been posted MANY TIMES, we do not know (yet) how life first emerged from lifeless chemicals. For all we know, an old guy in a night gown and an unkempt white beard, flying around in the air or sitting on a cloud, did it by magic. But we DO KNOW that, after life emerged (however that happened) it EVOLVED and continues to evolve. Period. And no, I do not believe that Humphries is a quack because I don't agree with him. I believe he is a quack because he does not belong to one scientific society and has never published a scientific paper in a real journal. You remind me of the church fathers around 1600, who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they would see how the solar system really was. One final point: YOU think that because you have found ONE so-called physicist that agrees with your load of fairy tales that he must be right and the THJOUSANDS who believe in evolution are wrong. What if I could find ONE Christian who believes that Genesis is a load of myths? Hmmm? If you don't know the first you sure don't know the rest. As far as thousands go, I couldn't care less. Most folks rely on what they are told and never check things for themselves. You reject the fact that a rock was broken and sent to four labs and the dating of the rock varied from lab to lab by a billion years. Radiometric dating is a joke. If a date disagrees with a preconceived date based on evolution the radiometric date is discarded.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the evolutionists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the creationists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not.... So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the creationists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the evolutionists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan. Let me know if I got this wrong or not... Yup. You got it wrong. Nope, he got it right. The claimed transitional forms in the fossil record were shown to be “not transitional” and no other credible transitional forms were noted. Where are the transitional forms? The evolutionary theorists can only come up increasingly stupid explanations for the embarrassing lack of fossil proof of evolution. The horse evolution nonsense was rebutted by statements of other evolutionists. Mark it down as mass hysteria and caving in to peer pressure by other “scientists.” Kinda the current scientific bias in support of global warming. Few.... if any ....money hungry university researcher will dare challenge the status quo for fear of being laughed at, ostracized and denied grant money. ..... Lemmings, self serving ones at that. Some out there cling to fruit fly mutations and peppered moths changes as proof of evolution. Only those that do not have a clue about genetics would be fooled by these claims. Oh, and if you want a good laugh, take a look at the contortions the evolutionist goes through trying to explain how the first living cell came into being, Seem some have give up and now are pointing to the earth being “seeded” by meteorites or aliens. Nope, evolution is a myth.... men going mad in herds. You could not be more wrong. Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time. Transitional forms - Understanding Evolution https://evolution.berkeley.edu › evolibrary › article › lines_03 Nonetheless, these transitional fossils serve as evidence to Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as conserved traits are proven to survive the test of time. This also supports evolution in a way that is shows gradual change in traits of species over generations due to change in living conditions. How do transitional fossils support the theory of evolution? | eNotes https://www.enotes.com › homework-help › how-do-transitional-fossils-supp... Misconception: “Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.” ... Lots of organisms don't fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record. Misconceptions: Gaps in the Fossil Record Disprove Evolution https://evolution.berkeley.edu › misconceps › IICgaps Your internet search skills provide a simple cursory gleaning from the lemmings. Go ahead and read your links and show me how it addresses my objections to evolution. I of course would be more interested in YOUR views, not just some lemming view.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
[For about 60 - 70 years thousands of intelligent people have tried to get chemicals to produce life and failed. What they have proven is
life can only come from life. If intelligence can't do it chance can't. Therefore the whole evolutionary faith Paradigm is built on blind faith.
You don't seem to be very intelligent, and maybe can't read well. As has been posted MANY TIMES, we do not know (yet) how life first emerged from lifeless chemicals. For all we know, an old guy in a night gown and an unkempt white beard, flying around in the air or sitting on a cloud, did it by magic. But we DO KNOW that, after life emerged (however that happened) it EVOLVED and continues to evolve. Period. And no, I do not believe that Humphries is a quack because I don't agree with him. I believe he is a quack because he does not belong to one scientific society and has never published a scientific paper in a real journal. You remind me of the church fathers around 1600, who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they would see how the solar system really was. One final point: YOU think that because you have found ONE so-called physicist that agrees with your load of fairy tales that he must be right and the THJOUSANDS who believe in evolution are wrong. What if I could find ONE Christian who believes that Genesis is a load of myths? Hmmm? If you don't know the first you sure don't know the rest. As far as thousands go, I couldn't care less. Most folks rely on what they are told and never check things for themselves. You reject the fact that a rock was broken and sent to four labs and the dating of the rock varied from lab to lab by a billion years. Radiometric dating is a joke. If a date disagrees with a preconceived date based on evolution the radiometric date is discarded. Ringman, Did you see that “statement of faith” posted by Indy? Just classic.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
The claimed transitional forms in the fossil record were shown to be “not transitional” and no other credible transitional forms were noted. Where are the transitional forms? The evolutionary theorists can only come up increasingly stupid explanations for the embarrassing lack of fossil proof of evolution.
Four legged snake ancestor fossil found: LinkWhoa, wait a minute! There are a number of paleontologist that now classify this as a simple “aquatic dinosaur like .... ready for it....lizard”. Not a snake.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,505
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,505 |
You reject the fact that a rock was broken and sent to four labs and the dating of the rock varied from lab to lab by a billion years. Radiometric dating is a joke. If a date disagrees with a preconceived date based on evolution the radiometric date is discarded. What four labs? Accordong to whom? I suspect that nobody believes any of the stuff you post except maybe the Billy Bob Bubba Bible School for Grade School Dropouts. And why haven't you tried to defend the absurd story about the talking snake?
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 945
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 945 |
[quote=MILES58][quote=Thunderstick]
I carefully chose my wording and used these terms--theism--morality--equality--religious liberty. I did not say that any particular religion should be state established and would be opposed to that--because that inevitably leads to another form of suppression. What I promoted is exactly what our founders promoted. Do you agree with the founding principles of our country--All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights? You cannot form a society on an amoral foundation or you will have an amoral and immoral society.
As bad as all the religious persecution has been, and it has been horrible, societies founded on atheism or evolution or the two in combination have been exponentially worse in their suppression and persecution.
.
Name a society that is or was based on evolution? Name a society that is or was based on atheism? There have been societies that have represses religion, but that is not atheism. Karl Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people".[1] Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."[2] Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and Communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."[3] Friedrich Engels wrote of atheistic evolutionism and Communism: "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered law of development of human history."[4] In 1955, Chinese Communist leader Zhou Enlai declared, "We Communists are atheists".[5] In 2014, the Communist Party of China reaffirmed that members of their party must be atheists.[6] See also: China and atheism In 2016, the International Business Times reported: “ A senior Chinese advisor on religious affairs has said the country should promote atheism throughout society, in remarks that appear to reflect a deepening campaign to reinforce traditional Marxist values in China — and could add to concern about official attitudes among believers in the country’s five officially recognized religions.[7] ” In 2014, the New American website indicated: “ The Communist Party of China (CPC) is letting its members know that the party’s official adherence to militant atheism has not changed; Party members are not allowed to be Christians, or to hold any other religious beliefs. That is the clear message sent by a top Party official in an editorial published on November 14 in the Global Times, the international version of People’s Daily, the official newspaper and mouthpiece of the CPC.[8] 1. Marx, Karl. 1976. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 3. New York. 2. Marx, Karl. Private Property and Communism, 1844. 3. Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich. The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion, 1909. 4. Engels, Friedrich. "Karl Marx's Funeral", Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 467. 5. Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001. 6. China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism, New American, 2014 7. China's Communist Party Bans Believers, Doubles Down On Atheism 8. Senior Chinese Religious Advisor Calls For Promotion Of Atheism In Society, International Business Times Your post is primarily about communism and atheism. Atheism and evolution are not exclusive except for those limited to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Leftism--Communism--atheism--evolutionary theory all walk hand in hand. While not all atheists are communists, all communists are atheists. Both atheists and communists espouse the evolutionary theory. Theism is the bulwark against all leftist agendas because you cannot be a leftist and a theist. Cuba is a communist country, yet they remain predominantly Roman Catholic. Please explain how this is possible????? While is is true that the Soviet Unions official stance in the early 1900's was of science over religion, they never outlawed religion. Churches remained open and folks still worshiped. Seems the promise of salvation is too persuasive for even a communist government to quell. Oh and China officially recognizes 5 different religions. I am still interested in learning of a society that is based on evolution.
Last edited by scoony; 08/27/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,752 Likes: 20
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,752 Likes: 20 |
There are a number of paleontologist that now classify this as a simple “aquatic dinosaur like .... ready for it....lizard”.
Not a snake. Dinosaurs aren't lizards. Snakes are a variety of lizard, in the modern classification system, but a variety that lost its legs long before any other lizard class did. PS You realize that some snakes, even today, have tiny useless leg bones, right? Pelvises, too. Pelvises are for attaching leg bones.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,933 Likes: 5
Campfire Ranger
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,933 Likes: 5 |
And for about 60 or 70 years, that same number of people have been trying to build an electrical generator powered by fusion energy. It has not happened yet. But that does not mean it is not possible, nor that it will not happen tomorrow.
Here's the problem with you conjecture. For about 60 - 70 years thousands of intelligent people have tried to get chemicals to produce life and failed. What they have proven is
life can only come from life. If intelligence can't do it chance can't. Therefore the whole evolutionary faith Paradigm is built on blind faith.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,933 Likes: 5
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,933 Likes: 5 |
Well sport, religion has always been at its core man's attempt to explain how we got here. That's fairly obvious.
So your question makes no sense. There's a surprise. We will have to disagree on this one. I believe religion was founded as an attempt by the few men to use the superstitions of the many men to control them and extort from them. "Should you lie with your wife on the wrong day of the month, you shall bring to the temple a feast of dove meat for the consumption of the priests"?????? Really?????????
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,866 |
You reject the fact that a rock was broken and sent to four labs and the dating of the rock varied from lab to lab by a billion years. Radiometric dating is a joke. If a date disagrees with a preconceived date based on evolution the radiometric date is discarded. What four labs? Accordong to whom? I suspect that nobody beliweves any of the stuff you post except maybe the Billy Bob Bubba Bible School for Grade School Dropouts. And why haven't you tried to defend the absurd story about the talking snake? If I supplied you with the name of the lab and the lab workers you would not accept them, despite the fact they are all evolutionists scientists. God's Word does not need me to defend It. When you and I are in our respective places for eternity, then I will be vindicated and you will still hate God.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
There are a number of paleontologist that now classify this as a simple “aquatic dinosaur like .... ready for it....lizard”.
Not a snake. Dinosaurs aren't lizards. Snakes are a variety of lizard, in the modern classification system, but a variety that lost its legs long before any other lizard class did. PS You realize that some snakes, even today, have tiny useless leg bones, right? Pelvises, too. Pelvises are for attaching leg bones. Right, like “they” .... the paleontologists say.... “aquatic lizard” .... smaller and a bit different, but much like a slim monitor lizard. Nope, not an example of “evolutionary transition.” BUT..... you can believe it if you choose to.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,752 Likes: 20
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,752 Likes: 20 |
There are a number of paleontologist that now classify this as a simple “aquatic dinosaur like .... ready for it....lizard”.
Not a snake. Dinosaurs aren't lizards. Snakes are a variety of lizard, in the modern classification system, but a variety that lost its legs long before any other lizard class did. PS You realize that some snakes, even today, have tiny useless leg bones, right? Pelvises, too. Pelvises are for attaching leg bones. Right, like “they” .... the paleontologists say.... “aquatic lizard” .... smaller and a bit different, but much like a slim monitor lizard. Nope, not an example of “evolutionary transition.” BUT..... you can believe it if you choose to. Every transition also represents a species unto itself. Any creature whose legs are becoming so small as to be almost or completely useless are in transition because legs and arms originally served an important function. They shrink when not used for survival, so environmental pressures no longer maintain their size and strength. The emu is a bird, for example, without wings of any description any longer. Only vestiges of wing "arms" remain, that hang limply and uselessly beneath their plumage. ![[Linked Image]](http://www.locolobo.org/files/emuarm.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965 |
While is is true that the Soviet Unions official stance in the early 1900's was of science over religion, they never outlawed religion. Churches remained open and folks still worshiped. Seems the promise of salvation is too persuasive for even a communist government to quell. Then there's this: The USSR anti-religious campaign of 1928–1941 was a new phase of anti-religious persecution in the Soviet Union following the anti-religious campaign of 1921–1928. The campaign began in 1929, with the drafting of new legislation that severely prohibited religious activities and called for a heightened attack on religion in order to further disseminate atheism. This had been preceded in 1928 at the fifteenth party congress, where Joseph Stalin criticized the party for failure to produce more active and persuasive anti-religious propaganda. This new phase coincided with the beginning of the forced mass collectivization of agriculture and the nationalization of the few remaining private enterprises. Many of those who had been arrested in the 1920s would continue to remain in prison throughout the 1930s and beyond. The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labour camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited. More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone. Only a twelfth of the Russian Orthodox Church's priests were left functioning in their parishes by 1941. In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500. The campaign slowed down in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and came to an abrupt end after the commencement of Operation Barbarossa. The challenge produced by the German invasion would ultimately prevent the public withering away of religion in Soviet society.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
TRH,
You may choose to believe that “micro evolution” .... aka genetic variation ..... is proof of “macro evolution.”
Many well respected paleontologists and well respected evolutionists would disagree.
BUT...... you may continue to believe what you choose.
Btw.... do you think that man caused global warming is “settled science?”
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,752 Likes: 20
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,752 Likes: 20 |
TRH,
You may choose to believe that “micro evolution” .... aka genetic variation ..... is proof of “macro evolution.” Sorry, but you guys keep advancing the definition of micro evolution whenever a case is shown to you that goes beyond your previous definition. One of you has already classified as micro evolution the relatedness between the rhinoceros and the horse, i.e., their having sprang from a common ancestor. That amounts to an admission of speciation by natural selection, i.e., evolution. You can't call that variation within a species anymore. That goes well beyond that. PS Macro evolution is merely the accumulation of micro evolution to the point where the genetic division between two lines is sufficient to prevent breeding back together. We call that "speciation," i.e., "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." - Wikipedia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
This is precisely why evolution is a "theory" in the dictionary definition because it never has and never will demonstrate repeatedly the purely materialistic spontaneous generation of life or the simultaneous development of all 30+ fine tuned mechanisms required for life. If the hypothesis has no scientific way to get started (it isn't taking us anywhere scientific), it certainly cannot be demonstrated, and therefore it is relegated to the simple dictionary definition of (non-scientific) theory i.e. an unproven assumption. This is why we insist and will continue to insist on the typical dictionary definition because not only is it unproven ... it is also both unscientific and illogical.
Science isn't done on 'dictionary definitions' - dictionary meanings reflect the common usage of words, which may be used in multiple ways and have multiple meanings. So it's false to assign a meaning to something where it doesn't belong. That would be the fallacy of equivocation. The word 'theory' in science has a specific meaning. Well you walked right into this one ... You are giving dictionary definitions all the time regarding biblical words and not taking context, logic, or original languages into consideration. Now when I deliberately do the same thing you have done continuously you want to object. Thanks for making this very easy to show your double standards. However the difference in these two cases is that the dictionary definition would apply to a theory which is an unproven assumption i.e. macro evolution. That just confirms that you don't understand what I said, not about dictionary definitions or anything else. Once again, people use words loosely, often using the word faith when they mean hope, or trust or good will - ''he acted in good faith'' - ''he acted in good will'' - therefore the word becomes a blanket term for a number of different concepts. Being a blanket term for a number of different concepts, some folks (read theists) love to shift between meanings in order to justify their own faith in things unseen and non-detectable, their God, their Holy Book, etc, thereby equivocating between one common usage of the word and meaning to another whenever it suits.
Last edited by DBT; 08/27/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
And again you resort to a contemporary dictionary for a modern definition of a word that comes from and which definition was derived from -- classical but more particularly from Koine Greek. You want to use a dictionary whenever it suits you except when it comes to defining the word "theory." can you not see how illogical that is?
A belief held without the support of evidence is a belief held on faith. It's as simple as that. Your objections are just a smokescreen.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
And there's probably a few like me wondering what the fuss is about, finding evolution and religion not incompatible, If life merges from complex chemical interaction and energy input under the right conditions and evolves thereafter, what need is the for religion as an explanation? Here's the problem with you conjecture. For about 60 - 70 years thousands of intelligent people have tried to get chemicals to produce life and failed. What they have proven is life can only come from life. If intelligence can't do it chance can't. Therefore the whole evolutionary faith Paradigm is built on blind faith. How life started is a different issue to life evolving. Life evolves. How life got started being more difficult to determine. It may be an extremely rare event, just the right conditions must be present, but we don't yet know what these are. Which does not mean: we don't know this, therefore God.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994 |
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time. Transitional forms - Understanding Evolution https://evolution.berkeley.edu › evolibrary › article › lines_03 Nonetheless, these transitional fossils serve as evidence to Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as conserved traits are proven to survive the test of time. This also supports evolution in a way that is shows gradual change in traits of species over generations due to change in living conditions. How do transitional fossils support the theory of evolution? | eNotes https://www.enotes.com › homework-help › how-do-transitional-fossils-supp... Misconception: “Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.” ... Lots of organisms don't fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record. Misconceptions: Gaps in the Fossil Record Disprove Evolution https://evolution.berkeley.edu › misconceps › IICgaps transitional forms - Understanding Evolution https://evolution.berkeley.edu › evolibrary › article › lines_03 Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time. Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull. A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms. ... Our understanding of the evolution of horse feet, so often depicted in textbooks, is derived from a scattered sampling of horse fossils within the multi-branched horse evolutionary tree. These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses. But, the standard diagram does clearly show transitional stages whereby the four-toed foot of Hyracotherium, otherwise known as Eohippus, became the single-toed foot of Equus. Fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution did indeed exist. As you can see to the left, each branch tip on the tree of horse evolution indicates a different genus, though the feet of only a few genera are illustrated to show the reduction of toes through time.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
|
|
|
|
|
509 members (1badf350, 257wthbylover, 219DW, 1936M71, 222Sako, 1234, 56 invisible),
2,448
guests, and
1,255
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,439
Posts18,489,434
Members73,970
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
