Instigator / Pro
7
1538
rating
4
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#1457
The Damage Inbreeding Causes Demonstrates Evolution Can’t be True
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
Lazarous
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 4,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
3
1702
rating
573
debates
67.8%
won
Description
Premise: The genetic code of organisms is breaking down over time not being developed and enhanced over time as required for molecules to man evolution. I am using inbreeding as an observable example of deterioration of the genome and am ready to expand my position in the debate to follow.
Rules: Quote your sources and be respectful.
Definitions:
Inbreeding: The Encyclopedia Britannica defines inbreeding as, “the mating of individuals or organisms that are closely related through common ancestry, as opposed to outbreeding, which is the mating of unrelated organisms. Inbreeding is useful in the retention of desirable characteristics or the elimination of undesirable ones, but it often results in decreased vigour, size, and fertility of the offspring because of the combined effect of harmful genes that were recessive in both parents” (https://www.britannica.com/science/inbreeding).
Macroevolution: The gain of additional new genetic information through mutations. If the resulting change in the organism is not determined to represent a net gain in genetic information it falls under one of the next two definitions.
Microevolution/Speciation (for purpose of this debate I will use the term speciation): The process by which animals pass on or fail to pass on genetic traits to their offspring. As John D. Morris, Ph.D. explains, “The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group” (https://www.icr.org/article/what-difference-between-macroevolution-microevolut/). This process never results in new genetic information but frequently results in loss of genetic information. For example, dogs with short hair genes in a cold climate are likely to freeze to death resulting in only the dogs with long hair genes remaining. Rather than gaining new genetic code for log hair this dog population has lost the genes required for short hair. Mutations good or bad do not fall under this definition.
Genetic Entropy: As defined by geneticentrapy.org genetic entropy, “is the genetic degeneration of living things. Genetic entropy is the systematic breakdown of the internal biological information systems that make life alive. Genetic entropy results from genetic mutations” (https://www.geneticentropy.org/whats-genetic-entropy).
Round 1
I would like to thank RationalMadman for accepting this
debate.
Introduction: The premise of molecules to man Evolution requires
that mutations create a net increase in genetic information over time. Genetic entropy
refers to the net deterioration of the genetic code over time. Since these
positions are in direct contradiction with each other, which position does the
scientific information better support. For the purpose of this debate, I am not
claiming that there is no such thing as a mutation that is both (a) beneficial and
(b) increases the genetic code. What I am asserting is that, even if mutations adding
genetic information exist, they are not statistically frequent enough to overcome
the numerous mutations resulting in informational loss.
Inbreeding: It is well known that inbreeding weakens
organisms over time. The miniature poodle for
example suffers from a wide range of eye related issues including glaucoma,
cataracts, progressive retinal atrophy, and abnormal eyelash growth. All of
these issues can ultimately lead to blindness (https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/the-15-least-healthy-dog-breeds.html/). As Lita Cosner puts it, “’Mutts’,
or even crossbred dogs, have a much lower chance of having these diseases,
because many are genetically recessive—a healthy copy of the gene will override
a diseased gene” (https://creation.com/parade-of-mutants).
In order for the evolutionary process to take place Inbreeding is inevitable and
likely to occur repeatedly. Once the first heterosexual organisms develop the
population would be very small and inbreeding would be inevitable.
Genetic entropy: The trend of accumulating mutations (genetic
entropy) is not limited to inbreeding. The select few mutations that might be
considered both beneficial and gains in information as required for
macroevolution are massively outnumbered by detrimental mutations. In the
article, ‘From ape to man via genetic meltdown: a theory in crisis’ Dr. J. C.
Stanford says, “Within any physical linkage unit, on average, thousands of
deleterious mutations would accumulate before a beneficial mutation would
arise” (https://creation.com/from-ape-to-man-via-genetic-meltdown-a-theory-in-crisis).
The net result of mutations is one step forward followed by thousands steps
back. This will only result in deterioration of the genetic code over time. As
Botanist Alexander Williams puts it, “Irrespective of whether creationists or
evolutionists do the calculations, somewhere between a few thousand and a few
million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to extinction, and this
is likely to occur over a time scale of only tens to hundreds of thousands of
years. This is far short of the supposed evolutionary time scales” (https://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end).
Natural selection,
our savior?: Now we must consider if natural selection is capable of saving the
process. In the book, “Genetic Entropy” (pg. 89) Dr. J. C. Stanford
says that, “Based upon numerous independent lines of evidence, we are forced to
conclude that the problem of human genomic degeneration is real. While selection
is essential for slowing down degeneration, no form of selection can actually
halt it…. The extinction of the human genome appears to be just as certain and
deterministic as the death of organisms, the extinction of stars, and the heat
death of the universe.” Science supports that mutations will ultimately
result in man to molecules devolution. The very premise which evolution is
built upon directly defies the scientific data.
Closing: Macroevolution and genetic entropy directly
contradict each other. We see genetic entropy occurring in inbred populations.
If observed in small populations then (a) why wouldn’t the inbreeding of the
first life form result in ultimate extinction through genetic entropy, and (b)
why would a larger population serve to do anything except slow the process of
genetic entropy?
There is nothing in Pro's post about why evolution cannot happen with inbreeding. This debate's resolution is not even about if evolution is true or not, but if it can be.
The concept of incestuous breeding leading to deformities and genetic decay doesn't disprove evolution in any way whatsoever. Note that it most commonly happens when the mother is extremely young (think your stereotypical redneck Alabama situation or whatever).
Inbreeding's 'decay' and 'damage' are not even that strong with cousins. Entire villages of India are built on cousin inbreeding and yes, it is linked with strange ears, some people having six fingers and such (but that could also be the radiation as they have a lot of pollution there).
Macroevolution is about the idea that over time, beings change within species and eventually the begins on 'one side' of a species and the other extreme of that species become more and more different to a point where a mutation in even just one of the people who has sex with others there means that group of children can't produce fertile offspring with the other 'end' of the species but probably can/could with the end they came from. It could be a being so extremely tall and unlike many other races of human, dog, ant that the shorter variant, especially those who are so severely different to it, end up incapable of producing fertile offspring with it. In the same way that horses and zebras, as well as donkeys, can produce infertile offspring, this being would be something that mutated enough from one side of an evolving multi-breed formation that couldn't reproduce with the 'other side'. If you're curious about species having this happen to them, even though their defining feature is that all within them of one sex can produce fertile offspring with the other (or that they reproduce asexually) then perhaps you should pay attention to inbreeding and what that would mean for the 'offshoot'.
It is actually due to the damage that inbreeding leads to that makes it so that when there's an offshoot, if they reproduce with themselves, they do indeed decay over time and go extinct. However, if they reproduce with the breed of the species that the 'mutated one' reproduced with, they can produce more and more offspring that are varied enough from each other to begin making a breed so different from the old species that over time (especially due to the fact that only those who are very different can produce fully virile and healthy offspring), it means that the species doesn't stay similar enough to their intermediary form after a while.
We can then ask 'but why didn't the intermediary offshoot keep reproducing with both species?' the answer is they probably did, but due to inbreeding leading to unhealthy, deformed and/or infertile offspring, it severely hampered the chances of the 'intermediaries of the intermediaries' lasting for long. In other words the very idea that macroevolution is impossible due to inbreeding is the complete opposite of the truth; it is only considered probable and true due to inbreeding explaining why the 'in between' beings die off.
Round 2
Inbreeding:Each offspring receives one set of chromosomes from each
parent. Any mutated mistakes passed on to the child from one parent will
hopefully be overridden by correct coding from the other parent’s DNA. Since
the gene pool is not as diverse in inbred populations, the chance of getting a
duplicated mutation from both parents is greatly increased. If your fruit salad
isn’t well mixed, you’re likely to come up with two lemons.
· First, inbreeding
provides an observable example of how organisms have a deteriorating genome
over time.
· Second, under
the evolutionary model, once the first two heterosexual organisms develop they
will have to inbreed with each other. Naturally it is quite reasonable to
assume these initial organisms will suffer from the exact same genetic
deterioration process we observe in inbred populations today.
Mutations:The
mounting scientific evidence supports that all genetic code is deteriorating
over time. Mutations possessing both (a) a net beneficial effect and (b) an
increase in the genetic code are extremely rare at best and perhaps
nonexistent.
· Beneficial Mutations: Mutations possessing the characteristic of being
beneficial are quite rare. As the quote
from Dr. J. C. Stanford in my last post points out, on average thousands of
damaging mutations occur for every one beneficial mutation.
· Mutations
Representing an Increase in Information: Do any of these rare mutations that
represent an increase in genetic information create a net increase in
information? As Dr. J. C. Stanford says, on page 17 of his book ‘Genetic
Entropy,’ “There are certainly many mutations which have been described as beneficial,
but most of these beneficial mutations have not created information, but rather
have destroyed it…. Information consistently decreases.” Dr. Lee Spencer said, "In all the reading I’ve
done in the life-science literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added
information. All point mutations that have been studied in the molecular level
turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it." So it
is highly questionable if the sorts of mutations required in abundance for
macroevolution to occur even exist at all.
Limitation 1 of Natural Selection: In order to prevent extinction, natural selection can’t
occur too rapidly. In general, less than one third of each
generation can be selected for elimination in order to avoid extinction. Each
human passes on about 100 or more mutations to the next generation. If we take
a human population of 6 million people and assume that 1/3 of them don’t have
children this will still result in an estimated 400 million mutations created
per generation. If we consider two thirds of these mutations to be neutral and
the other third harmful, the result is 133 billion new damaging mutations
passed on per generation. These calculations summarize work done by Dr. J. C.
Stanford, and the calculations are actually quite conservative. The rate at
which natural selection can work is quite limited. Natural selection is
incapable of keeping up with the high rate of damaging mutations as observed by
science.
Limitation
2 of Natural Selection:Now let’s sprinkle a couple of miracle
mutations into this population. Again these are mutations that are both
beneficial and create an increase in information. Mutations can’t be selected individually
by natural selection; rather, each organism is an inseparable package deal. In
our example above each lucky lottery winner of a miracle mutation would also
get approximately 33 negative mutations piled on that. It is incredibly unlikely
that even a single cherry-picked specimen would receive a net increase in
beneficial information through this process.
As Botanist Alexander Williams puts it, “Irrespective of
whether creationists or evolutionists do the calculations, somewhere between a
few thousand and a few million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to
extinction.” (https://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end).
I probably will lose this debate but at this point I have zero idea what Pro is arguing. Pro has seemingly given up debating that evolution can't happen with inbreeding's damage to genes being present.
The argument in general focuses on macroevolution and how over time a species should go extinct if it's too similar to other within it, genetically. I don't see anywhere that Pro attacks this.
In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection.
- The theory of evolution is based on the idea that all species? are related and gradually change over time.
- Evolution relies on there being genetic variation? in a population which affects the physical characteristics (phenotype) of an organism.
- Some of these characteristics may give the individual an advantage over other individuals which they can then pass on to their offspring.
Nowhere in this is inbreeding's damage to genes incompatible.
Round 3
The broader parameters of my position indirectly counter Con’s
position. Inbreeding causes genetic deterioration within that population over
time. This is empirical science. This raises two questions:
1) How could evolution have occurred considering
that at one or more points the first heterosexual organisms would have to
inbreed?
2) If smaller populations experience quick genetic
deterioration why should we expect a larger population to do anything except
slow this deterioration process?
In order for Con’s explanation to be tenable, the evidence
needs to support that, only under specific circumstances, the genome of each
creature deteriorates. The evidence I
provided above shows that:
1) Empirical science clearly demonstrates that
organisms in large populations also have a deteriorating genome over time.
2) Natural selection is utterly inadequate to save
the day. Even under the most generous statistical models natural selection
falls desperately short. Natural selection is simply incapable of removing
negative mutations from a population at a high enough rate to protect the odd
beneficial mutation.
3) In order for macroevolution to work, it is
not enough for a mutation to be beneficial; these mutations must also
result in a net gain in
genetic information. The probability of such mutations occurring range from highly
unlikely to nonexistent (evidence provided in my last argument). If all retained beneficial mutations result
in no change or a decline in the quantity of genetic information, all organisms
would experience a continual reduction in complexity. This is not the recipe
required for molecules to man evolution.
This establishes that the problem of a deteriorating genome
over time is not limited to inbred populations. This counters Con’s primary
argument, since his position requires that the long term net deterioration
of the genome be isolated to inbred populations.
Nothing in the biological definition Con provided identifies
whether the organism becomes more complex or simpler over time. If by evolution Con means change, then yes, I do believe that the genome of organisms changes over
time; however, empirical science does not support that these genetic changes
will result in a net increase in genetic information over time. As stated
earlier, a perpetual decline in genetic information will not result in
macroevolution. Although not explicitly stated, this definition does imply that
evolution is capable of adding information to the genome over time. Inbreeding
and empirical science contradict this implication.
Again, there are two objections that inbreeding raises against macroevolution:
1) Why should we expect the first heterosexual organisms
supposedly produced by evolution to avoid the genetic deterioration empirical science
observes in inbred populations?
2) Since the genome deteriorates in smaller
populations why would a larger populations serve to do anything but slow the
rate of deterioration? This position is now supported with evidence that the phenomenon
of genetic entropy affects all organisms not just the inbred populations.
Forfeited
Round 4
Considering that there is no further rebuttal, I rest my chase upon the weight of
the evidence already presented.
I fully explained. They mate with those on the end of the genetic spectrum of the species they evolved from. Their children then have cousins etc and can mate with second-cousins in the next generation so on and so forth, only one generation has to have proper incest going on.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, conduct, and sources
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct. Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
None of these are satisfactorily completed.
************************************************************************
Pro explained how the two processes could not occur simultaneously.
Con failed to rebut, simply providing opinions without sources and essentially saying, "You are wrong."
In R2, con essentially conceded the debate, saying, "I probably will lose this debate but at this point I have zero idea what Pro is arguing."
It's fairly obvious what pro is arguing. There is a resolution to this debate, after all.
Pro used reputable sources, con used one source, although it didn't cover the information that was being talked about.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: bobo // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for sources, conduct, and arguments
>Reason for Decision: Pro provided understandable information from reliable sources. Did not notice any misspelling. Pro used proper and polite words to disagree with con.
>Reason for Mod Action: This user is inelligable to vote. In order for an account to be eligable to vote, they must first have completed 2 debates OR 100 forum posts AND read the site's COC. They have done none of these.
Please review the COC: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
OoDart's debates that are completed, have 2 with forfeits in them.
2 blatant votebombs, just remove it please even if I will lose anyway. Neither user is even eligible to vote.
My vote accidentally submitted before explaining conduct:
Con forfeited a round.
I would love to bedate you on origins some time. Unfortuanentl a demanding debate challenge has slipped on to my plate. Perhaps you would like to take a rain check, and we can properly hash this out. Regrettably the conversation here has gotten too personal to be very productive.
Remember to always keep the conversation civil.
Watch this amazing video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMbEVv3IsGY
you are so retarded you must be inbred
religious people are completely retarded
you are a coward let me prove to you how true evolution is, you cowardly little worm
evolution has been proven to be a fact
The more i think about this the more i realize you have to be crazy to even think this are you trolling?
Evolution is a basic principle and science is a basic exercise. The complexity is in the finer details of what we attempt to understand.
Extinction is just as much a part of the evolutionary sequence as development is.
And evolution has no problems. It's only human beings that create imaginary problems. Evolution will continue as it will.
And my fourth point simply suggests that the extinction of organic life on Earth is probably an inevitable consequence.
And a lot of the god thing is probably just another inevitable consequence of our imagination.
Though the notion of creation is nonetheless reasonable.
And I think that it is fair to suggest that the 0 to 1 pre-organic creation event occurred more than seven thousand years ago. (Prove me wrong)
What are you talking about? God simply created everything six to seven thousand years ago. The numerous problems that riddle evolution have no association with this model.
Evolution is not a ‘simple concept.’ It is only simple to those that have a simple understanding of science. Science is not simple in the least, and the more we learn about science the more impossibly stretched the theory of evolution becomes.
Man to molecules devolution will not result in life to start with under evolution. Man to molecules devolution is driving all living organisms to extinction. This is the very enemy of evolution.
I’m not sure what you are referring to on your fourth point, but this point is irrelevant to the discussion if it does not demonstrate an increase in genetic information over time.
Hitchens's Razor applies to blatant assertions followed up with no support. This logical tool properly applies to your unsupported position that evolution is scientifically supported. However, I did provide evidence for all three of my points. But for argument sake, lets explore these further:
1) The law of biogenesis is so universally accepted. Scientific laws are already established as axioms, meaning that they are universally recognized as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. However, I will provide a source regardless: Biology Online Dictionary defines the law of biogenesis as. “The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material” (https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis).
2) Everything comes from nothing defies basic logic. The evidence provided here is basic logic, and yet you dismiss basic logic using an abuse of logic. Defining nothing is so difficult because nothing in all reality possesses no definition. There is nothing there to poses the definition. That being said, Merriam-Webster seems to do a pretty good job of describing nothing, “not any thing : no thing”(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nothing). So I reassert that everything cannot come from nothing. Once we give nothing the attributes to be or do anything, it is no longer nothing.
3) The deterioration of the genome is heavily supported in the debate you are commenting on. It seems you have lost sight of the purpose of the comments section.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.[1][2][3][4]
— Hitchens's Razor
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.[1][2][3][4]
— Hitchens's Razor
Gods fail for exactly the same reasons.
Nonetheless. Evolution is a simple concept relative to a far bigger sequence of events, rather than just the current Darwinian bit.
As such, "man to molecules devolution" can easily be regarded as being a part of the evolutionary sequence.
There is clear evidence to suggest that dominance of the sequence is shifting away from the fragile organic, towards more robust forms of intelligence.
Science does not provide an adequate explanation as to why God might not exist. There is no God of the gaps. Do you believe in Henry Ford or the Model T? The Model T is quite capable of functioning completely independent of Henry Ford. Ruling out the existence of God on the basis of the universes ability to function independently is absurd.
In order for what we know about science to be true, we must assume that our senses are telling us the truth. Do you trust your senses? Under an evolutionary model, natural selection is under no obligation to select that which is true. If a natural sense were to provide an organism with false information in a way that proves beneficial results, that trait would be chosen. The very chaos of the evolutionary model brings into question whether we can trust our senses, and, therefore, whether science can be trusted.
Science contradicts evolution at several lethal points.
1) The law of biogenesis: this scientific law directly contradicts abiogenesis (a non-negotiable requirement for evolution to be true). Without life coming from non-life there is no evolution.
2) Everything comes from nothing: Any working models to explain how everything can come from nothing fall short in that they both (a) do not agree with empirical science and (b) redefine the concept of nothing. The very attempt to define what nothing is automatically identifies what is being described as something other than nothing.
3) The deterioration of the genome: Science observes the genome losing information all the time. The statistics surrounding the empirical science of mutations reveals that all organisms are consistently losing genetic information in an inevitable journey to extinction. This is man to molecules devolution, the very opposite of Darwinistic evolution.
If evolution fails at any one of these points the theory completely breaks down. Empirical science shows that evolution fails at all three.
science does not prove the existence of god it explains why he might not exist how his existence is uneccessary to explain things thats why most scientiest today are atheists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology https://www.livescience.com/59361-why-are-atheists-generally-more-intelligent.html
The ‘educated’ tend to think they’ve got it all figured out. They are arrogant and self righteous. This, indeed, is what sets Christianity apart from every other world view including atheism. You are utterly inadequate to save yourself. Don’t look within yourself to solve your problems, for you are the one who is confused. Your point is really quite an irrelevant one considering that there are a great many highly educated creationists. I have cited sources from some of them. Highly intelligent people are on both sides.
I can’t speak to the ‘average church goer,’ since I don’t seem to be particularly average, but I will say I have yet to personally meet an atheist who knows the Bible better than I do. You are not speaking to the ‘average church goer’; therefore stop fabricating this straw man and throwing me into it. If you can’t refute the scientific evidence presented here with real evidence why are you here?
which is why inbreds tend to be very relgious they are fucking stupid
oh bullshit religion is completely unsupported conjecture ask yourself what are most sceintists atheists/ and why athesits on average have iqus 20 points higher than the devout and why atheists know the bible better than the average church goer because we know its all bullshit and you like being a stupid little sheep
A completely unsupported conjecture. The very sort of argument resorted to when intellectual laziness is prevalent and/or evidence is lacking.
no you dont all you have is psuedo science and an invisible god you jerk off to god is dead science is real and you sir are a fraud
I have Ph.D.'s that backup my 'incomprehensible jargon.' I hope the irony of your statement is not lost on everyone else.
Description: When incomprehensible jargon or plain incoherent gibberish is used to give the appearance of a strong argument, in place of evidence or valid reasons to accept the argument.
Argument by Gibberish - Logically Fallacious
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com › tools › LogicalFallacies › Argument-b...
Description: When incomprehensible jargon or plain incoherent gibberish is used to give the appearance of a strong argument, in place of evidence or valid reasons to accept the argument.
Argument by Gibberish - Logically Fallacious
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com › tools › LogicalFallacies › Argument-b...
pro is using the fallacy of jargon Description: When incomprehensible jargon or plain incoherent gibberish is used to give the appearance of a strong argument, in place of evidence or valid reasons to accept the argument.
Argument by Gibberish - Logically Fallacious
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com › tools › LogicalFallacies › Argument-b...
an absurd nonsequitor dna that is too smilar causes defects so on the contrary this does prove evolution solidly
I think you mean Australopithecus. Some of these specimens were fabricated from fragments scattered over 1.55 kilometers (almost a mile). This specimen is most definitely a mash up of multiple creatures perhaps not even of the same species. These specimens poses overwhelming ape like characteristics. I can’t find any creationist source that claims this is human. You will have to provide a source on that.
Peregocetus pacificus was fabricated based on skull fragments only. This is a perfect example of the sort of frauds evolutionists fabricate. This clearly demonstrates their artistic imagination and lack of integrity. As it turns out, a more complete specimen was obtained later and this creature was found to be a fast running land mammal.
There are literally hundreds of major transitional forms, between many of the major groupings. There are scientific arguments around whether some forms of therapsids should be called mammal like reptiles or reptile like mammals. The same goes for hominid my favourite one is the creationists are unable to agree whether some advanced australapithicus species are 100% human or 100% ape (which seems a pretty definitive example of a transitional form).
The idea that there have been major perpetuated frauds for transitional forms is largely an invention from creationists, and sites like creation.com who demonstrably lie about them; and the idea that there should be constant and continuous change that would produce a blended rainbow of species seems not to understand that evolution is mostly adaptation to changes in environment, when the environment is stable for tens millions of of years, one would not expect large scale rapid evolution.
Finally ; as you should know - a whale with a partially formed gill would completely refute evolution - I mean seriously, do you understand how evolution even works before rejecting it out of hand? We already have whales with legs: they’re called Peregocetus pacificus
Are you telling me that you will not trust the conclusion of a medical doctors when it comes to trying to analyze fossils? Why would you not trust me if I show a medical doctor who has analyzed fossils and show that they are Transitional?
Have i not shown my dislike of doctors.
https://biblehub.com/greek/5331.htm
Do evolutionists really have to cherry pick data so hard. If evolution is true it should vertualy impossibly to classify anything. Instead evolutionists are fabricating frauds and basing overarching theories on the most minute detail. One supposed transitionallife form does not make evolution. And we're squabbling over the most trivial of characteristics. Find a whale with a partially formed gill or leg and weve got something to talk about.
Would you like me to quote a Medical Doctor (MD) that has analyzed the whale skeleton and will vouch that it is definitely a transitional form?
My last post had errors.
telling which gender something is by the bones is not the same. A lot of time girls are built entirely different from boys. There are huge biological differences.
Speaking of which how did a monkey evolve into a human and The guy ends up entirely different from the girl.There are so many different biological differences. So the theory goes that over billion of years they got there traits by adapting to there environment. So if a male adapts and becomes bigger from doing hard work. Then why does this trait not effect girls the DNA is the same.The answer is simple God created men to Work for the family And females to take care of children and stuff
Telling which gender something is. not the same. A lot of time girls are built entirely different from boys. There are huge biological differences.
Speaking of which had did a monkey evolve into a human. But The guy ends up entirely different from the girl.There are so many different biological differences. So the theory goes that over billion of years they got there traits by adapting to there environment. So if a male adapts and becomes bigger from doing hard work. Then why does this trait not effect girls the DNA is the same.The answer is simple God created men to Work for the family And females to take care of children and stuff.Same with evolution creature. The reason why Animals have traits that would help them in there environment. Is because God
The creator must have had knowledge that the dog would be hot during the summer so he applied this knowledge and made it so the creature to shed its fur during the summer.
the creator of the mountain goat gave the goat special feet that make it easier to mountain climb..because he knew it would need them because they live in the mountains
https://www.debateart.com/debates/643/life-is-created-intelegently
" ear that indicated transitional properties of the war between ungulates and whales - more complete forms of the fossils have subsequently been found.
OK so it is a little outdated.
There talking about a transition fossil what else could they possibly be talking about.
The reason why the site said the ear had to be identical to the whale is because that is what there models had along with the other bones you mentioned
We are not just talking about pictures. We are talking about models. The prevolved whale Fossil models in the museums has a skull with a blowhole. But no blowhole has been found.Only a top part of the skull exist.
https://youtu.be/uccden3r98A?t=64
Again - you seem to be blatantly ignoring everything being said to focus on the same false premises I have explained are wrong. Let me be clear - again.
The bones found included portions of skull and ear that indicated transitional properties of the war between ungulates and whales - more complete forms of the fossils have subsequently been found.
That the ear wasn’t identical to a whale does not change that this is a transitional form. Your website lied.
That the fossil has properties of ungulates does not change that this is a transitional form. Your website lied.
That an —artist— painted a blow hole, or tried to fill in the gaps for an incomplete skeleton does not mean the bones discovered are not transitional.
Starting off with few bones does not make this not a Jew species, or not transitional. As mentioned (and ignored - we can tell age sex and species from pieces of femur alone - so not having lots of bone isn’t a big deal).
The website - and you 1 have made it clear you don’t really understand what a transitional form is - given your demand that it be more whale like; and this ignorance of how transitional forms is being used to attack it.
Now, if you want to persistently ignore every fact presented against you - feel free to continue your own ignorance, but please stop repeating the same nonsense I have already addressed.
This entire point is nothing but dishonest misrepresentation of the science and the specimen.
"the discovered species is not a whale - it doesn’t look like a whale - it doesn’t have the ear of a whale - however the bones discovered "
Exactly then why did the creature they presented have these features.Even though no bones of these things were fund
They made it clear they were talking about a transition fossil .What else would they be talking about.
Embryo is true because of picture. That is why i linked pictures instead of argument.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Heckles+evolution+fraud&t=ffab&atb=v133-1&iax=images&ia=images
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_T-vNByT03qc%2FTRzkT1TTHfI%2FAAAAAAAAACk%2FmH4bU_OWMq0%2Fs320%2FHaeckels%252Bfetus.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
"the discovered species is not a whale - it doesn’t look like a whale - it doesn’t have the ear of a whale - however the bones discovered (and have now been corroborated with multiple other finds), show a sigmoid process in the ear, the ear isn’t a whale ear, but has a diagnostic traits of a whale, as well as diagnostic traits of ungulates. "
The creature they presented had blowholes flippers ears even though none of these body parts had been found.
Yes - this is all covered in what I said below; and is a deliberately dishonest and unscientific attempt to attack evolution, and to convince those ignorant of the science or the discovery.
The discovered species is not a whale - it doesn’t look like a whale - it doesn’t have the ear of a whale - however the bones discovered (and have now been corroborated with multiple other finds), show a sigmoid process in the ear, the ear isn’t a whale ear, but has a diagnostic traits of a whale, as well as diagnostic traits of ungulates.
Creation.com is deliberate misrepresenting this find, by implying the war must be exactly like a whale to be transitional (false), that a complete skeleton is required to determine that (false - as explained), and that because artist - that isn’t the scientist who made the discovery - used artistic license and painted a blow hole : that the diagnostic trait that exist doesn’t
This is dishonest claptrap from a non scientific source, being parroted by those who don’t know any better and seem not to care about what anyone says.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Heckles+evolution+fraud&t=ffab&atb=v133-1&iax=images&ia=images
https://creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud
There was only a couple bones. They created an entire animal. There should be more similarity.
"Dr Werner recorded on video Dr Thewissen admitting that a key evidence of whale ancestry, the sigmoid process of the ear-bone apparatus (again), was actually nothing like a whale ear bone"
Video on bottom of site