Search results

Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is ....Really? .......Really? This again? Why? Just...why? (Okay, I know why, but the question still stands, because really, it needs to) Plenty of people here are dealing with all of this nonsense wonderfully, but I just want to...

Oh wow, didn't even see this. Hope I'm not too late. Coelophysis um...bauri? My best guess off the top of my head

Another issue with common design is what goes on embryonically in birds. I find it odd that a designer would have chickens grow tooth buds only to be reabsorbed prior to hatching. Or a long bony tail and five manual digits. Has anyone here ever seen an explanation provided by a creationist?

I agree with everything you posted above. Some of my colleagues (one of which works in dinosaur bone histology) and myself read this paper together: Armitage, M.A. Anderson, K.A. 2013. Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus...

Soooo hi! :? I realize it's been months since the debate ended, but life happened to a large extent, and as many of you may have noticed I haven't even been online in months. Seeing as this all happened so long ago, I'm going to keep this fairly quick. Both participants were very cordial...

Re: Chemostratigraphy shows the geologic column is no flood Very well done! I've never seen anyone take this angle on flood geology (I'm being too gratifying by calling it geology).

So this paper was published very recently. I was able to read it and thought I'd give a (very) brief summary here. The authors used a variety of techniques to independently confirm that purported soft tissue structures found a few years earlier in a Brachylophosaurus canadensis specimen are...

Re: creationist's error on dinosaur, etc., soft tissue What in particular is on your mind? For Pelecanimimus I was responding a while back to this quote: The soft tissue was replaced by iron carbonate in some areas, and as phosphatized microbrial mats in others. In both cases the soft tissue...

A pretty weird skull! A phytosaur; I know there's some reassigning going on, so Pseudopalatus/Machaeroprosopus? I don't know species names, at least not for this genus.

Yes we went over this, and you're the one still not getting it. The whales ARE transitional! I and everyone else has explicitly laid out for you what a transitional fossil is. Just because Dorudon and Basilosaurus are sister taxa doesn't mean they aren't transitional fossils! For the tenth time...

Quickly responding to some of the comments here: The purpose of fenestration has not been nailed down, but it may reduce the weight of the skull by reducing the amount of bone without compromising its overall structural integrity. There's also the chance of them being involved in muscle...

Thank you. We know that transitional fossils aren't direct ancestors! That's what I've been trying to tell you the entire time! Transitional fossils are not and never have been assumed to be direct ancestors to anything. I told you this in my very first post to you: Now for the fifth(?)...

Mutational leap is not an actual thing, even though I do know what you're attempting to say. Considering we as individuals each have hundreds of mutations in our DNA alone, your claim is tenuous at best. Kindly follow your own advice and give us the evidence. How many generations of populations...

I can and do blame you. You're still not getting what the whale chart means and asking for evidence based on your incorrect interpretation of it. That's not how it works. We're telling you what evolution actually is. Once you get that, then move on to the evidence, which has actually been...

Lol! Lucky I picked today to see what was going on in the forums otherwise this would have been buried! I'm a tad confused with what you mean? All herons fly with their heads tucked in, including the shoe bill. Storks and cranes typically don't, and the shoebill is a stork that happens to feed...

No...you don't. You're asking another wrong question which effectively demonstrates you don't understand what the chart is indicating. Nothing wrong with that per se, but I'm trying to tell you what it means and I don't see any indication you're internalizing any of what anyone has said. Dragan...

I suspect people might consider me to be more mature because I took the time to consider your position and formulate an appropriate response, as everyone else on this forum aside from you usually does. Perhaps you should give it a try. Not even remotely. Go back and read what I wrote.

You supplied no refutation to any of what I said, in spite of the fact that I'm telling you as a scientist myself that you are fundamentally misunderstanding what evolution posits. Care to behave in a mature and intelligent manner and try again? Edit: Forgot to add, I gave you the correct...

This was directed at Dragan but I feel the need to point out that this is asking the wrong question. Direct ancestry is not actually what the whale chart is implying (what Dragan posted above is what one should be focusing on; i.e., the change in character states) Here's a segment from a blog I...

I almost forgot about this month's KYB! The Dicynodont Placerias hesternus