Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Kindest regards,Dragan Glas said:
gilbo12345 said:If you bothered to read my reply you would know why... There is no "line of transition" from one specimen to the other. Essentially you are taking a leap of faith to assume X organism became Y organism when you do not have a clear line of transition displaying every single small variance in the fossils.. Considering the "millions of years" these organisms have existed for there should be enough fossils lying around to demonstrate all these small variances... (I mean in the order of say 20 to 30 fossil organisms between each assumed transition demonstrating an observable progression from one to the other). Without this you ARE assuming that one organism became another since you have no reason to claim they did, apart from your own evolutionary assumptions.
I'd ask what EXPERIMENT was done to verify that each of these supposed "whale transitions" are indeed whale transitions? As I have been saying no experiment = no verification = no sale.
If you claim that X organism became Y organism then THAT is linear... Between X and Y... That is what I am saying with the "line of transition" if you cannot demonstrate the changes between X and Y why in the world should I do as you do and assume they occured?
gilbo12345 said:What makes you say that? A creationist perspective is similar design = similar DNA needed for the similar functions to be utilized by the similar organisms. However surely you realise that with the advent of epigenetics (which was halted by the evolutionary blunder of "junk" DNA belief), means that DNA is not the be-all-end-all for similarity.
If you didn't know epigenetics demonstrates that organisms with the same genes could produce totally different gene products from those genes, meaning two organisms with similar genetic structure could be totally different.
gilbo12345 said:Additionally the methods for DNA analysis are flawed in that
a) they allow the addition of gaps in "alignment" on the basis that evolution has occurred and thus mutations have altered the DNA. Meaning to use DNA analysis to support evolution is an example of circular reasoning...
b) The addition of these gaps ensures that the process is entirely arbitrary since the sequences are aligned to whatever you are testing them with. I tested this myself whilst studying this.
I had lots of different plant sequences DNA A,B,C,D,E and W,X,Y,Z, all of which are similar being crop plants (so no trees etc)
I aligned DNA A with B,C,D,E and aligned DNA A with W,X,Y,Z and guess what I found... The gaps given to DNA in each alignment were totally different...
Meaning the computer was incorporating the gaps in an attempt to force similarity between the sequences I was testing. How do we know that the first alignment is correct or the second one is? If we switch the DNA A's over there is almost zero similarity. On what basis can this be a true representation of reality when it is being doctored?
What I'd like to see would be DNA sequencing done with NO alignment, just the RAW DNA being tested for similarity. But that will never happen because there will be very little similarity.
gilbo12345 said:Obviously in order to make such a statement you have never heard of the inconsistencies between morphological trees and genetic trees.. I suggest rather than living in a bubble, pop your head into reality and LOOK at the real data. Some honest scientists are starting to realise this as per the article below.
gilbo12345 said:I wasn't using it as evidence? I was giving a definition because you asked, remember?
gilbo12345 said:Significant?
gilbo12345 said:How in the world does this advance any form of rebuttal to my asking for the EXPERIMENTS that verify evolutionary inferences?
This was why I didn't reply before because it advanced nothing for the topic, and didn't address my question, as well as being a shotgun making this thread expand into topics I don't want to discuss on this thread. I would rather discuss the experiments (or lack thereof) supporting evolutionary assumptions at least Liam is addressing my question.
Give him a break. I'm sure he's busy with school. :lol:australopithecus said:Gilbo returned and seemingly has ran away again.
Dave B. said:Give him a break. I'm sure he's busy with school. :lol:australopithecus said:Gilbo returned and seemingly has ran away again.
[url=http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5485&page=2#entry94723 said:gilbo12345[/url]"]Perhaps if the hypothesis was "there are fossils in this hill" then digging to find them would be an experiment for that hypothesis.
Prolescum said:Dave B. said:Give him a break. I'm sure he's busy with school. :lol:
If by school you mean here... Same shit, but in a comfort zone. :lol:
[url=http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5485&page=2#entry94723 said:gilbo12345[/url]"]Perhaps if the hypothesis was "there are fossils in this hill" then digging to find them would be an experiment for that hypothesis.
Gitbo12345 said:I believe Ron used the context, VALIDATE... Go read what you quoted.
Besides this is merely a point of semantics,
'Oh noes the world is going to end because someone typed the wrong word'....[sic]
Get over yourself mate.
Evolution has been observed? Like in an experiment?... Care to post one?
(Without assuming "evolution did it", like our friend BeesKnees).
Or will you dodge like all the others on this...
Is that what you wanted?
Then don't complain about being banned when you know full well that you have gone against the rules.
Perhaps if the hypothesis was, if the Theory of Evolution is correct, then we would expect to find a transitional fossil in this exact location. We did.[url=http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5485&page=2#entry94723 said:gilbo12345[/url]"]Perhaps if the hypothesis was "there are fossils in this hill" then digging to find them would be an experiment for that hypothesis.
Dave B. said:Perhaps if the hypothesis was, if the Theory of Evolution is correct, then we would expect to find a transitional fossil in this exact location. We did.[url=http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5485&page=2#entry94723 said:gilbo12345[/url]"]Perhaps if the hypothesis was "there are fossils in this hill" then digging to find them would be an experiment for that hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
he_who_is_nobody said::?:
Hackenslash, I see gilbo12345 respondingto a post you made, but I do not see the post from you. Have they already removed it or am I not looking hard enough?
Dustnite said:he_who_is_nobody said::?:
Hackenslash, I see gilbo12345 respondingto a post you made, but I do not see the post from you. Have they already removed it or am I not looking hard enough?
They deleted the post. Standard operation at EFF.
Isotelus said:Without an understanding of what a transitional fossil actually is, this will mean nothing to him. He fixates on the tetrapod footprints from Poland, thinking it is an invalidation.
Frenger said:I've tried to explain this twice to him now, but because he still thinks evolution works in a straight line, it falls on deaf ears.
gilbo said:Considering the "millions of years" these organisms have existed for there should be enough fossils lying around to demonstrate all these small variances... (I mean in the order of say 20 to 30 fossil organisms between each assumed transition demonstrating an observable progression from one to the other).
You admitted that you are not a scientist, I am and so are my colleagues...