Animal that doesn't need oxygen to survive discovered

a reply to: cooperton

My comments were strictly concerned with the subject matter of the salminicola studies and what data has been analyzed to find a compelling indication of intelligent design, and what methodology was involved in this examination to reach such a conclusion.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

My comments were strictly concerned with the subject matter of the salminicola studies and what data has been analyzed to find a compelling indication of intelligent design, and what methodology was involved in this examination to reach such a conclusion.

Defend Evolution with empirical evidence and logic or admit it is a belief system that is not based in observable data.

The fact that Evolution has never occurred in a lab, despite millions of generations trying to do so, indicates evolutionary theory is wrong.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

My comments were strictly concerned with the subject matter of the salminicola studies and what data has been analyzed to find a compelling indication of intelligent design, and what methodology was involved in this examination to reach such a conclusion.

Defend Evolution with empirical evidence and logic or admit it is a belief system that is not based in observable data.

The fact that Evolution has never occurred in a lab, despite millions of generations trying to do so, indicates evolutionary theory is wrong.

You made a claim, I am curious to see your data and methodology for determining that salminicola is proof of intelligent design.

The agenda never changes, any excuse to try and make evolution look stupid.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Poofmander

So you are only in favor of frontwards science, no working backwards at all, forensic science must be bunk too, no way we could ever figure out what happened before now.

I'm not saying scientific conjecture into the past is wrong. It is backwards science because they assume the theory to be true and speculate accordingly without actual empirical evidence to prove it. That is why it's backwards. The real scientific method involves using observable evidence to postulate a theory.

No. In science, a theory can be speculation. But it is then compared with evidence, and abandoned if it fails rigorous tests.

Evolution is hard to prove or disprove, because the theory doesn't predict speciation to happen within the span of 100 or even 1000 years for most organisms.


But "speciation" is an overburdened definition. Just because you personally define a "cat" as a different species than a "dog" doesn't necessarily mean a cat is a different "thing" in the universal sense. It could just be a miscategorization on your part. Someone else might define that cat as a dog that has interesting cat-like traits.

I think the definition that is most widely acknowledged is that the two creature types must be incapable of successfully breeding. So, for example, a lion and a tiger are not different species, because it is possible to breed the two and get a Liger. A donkey and a horse are not two different species because they can breed to create a mule.

And of course, once a pair of creature types are no longer able to interbreed, all manner of additional differences will start to gradually emerge, between them.

So soft tissue would is found in dinosaur bones..

Please tell me how this evidence changes everything and explain why we find so little of this soft tissue if it is so important to your evolution breaking theory.

Soft tissue doesn't persist for 100s of millions of years. DNA doesn't either (which they also found fragments of). The fact we find it shows that dinosaurs are much younger. I compiled all the evidence that supports this idea: Dinosaurs lived alongside humans

Nobody knows for sure when the last dinosaur died.

Wooly Mammoths, for example continued as a small population on Wrangel Island for quite a long time after the majority of their species had perished following the Younger Dryas period.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Scientists know when the majority of dinosaurs died, however. But if a small population of them were to have continued in some remote area of jungle or something, that would likely be undetectable by modern methods.