Question for Evolutionist's

reply to post by ZeussusZ


There is no such thing as the missing link. This is a term used by the uninformed and Creationist propagandists. In truth we have a fossil record that starts at Homo sapiens sapiens and extends past Australopithecus africanus.

reply to post by ZeussusZ

May I introduce you to the Hoatzin,currently found in the Amazon and Orinoco. Its an incredibly poor flyer, so it uses its wings for climbing. Still think those transitional limbs would be useless?

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


I'm sure this has been said already, but 1. This thread seems to be just for you to effectively gloat about your faith 2. If fossil records are not enough evidence then what would be acceptable- we cannot literally watch evolution by natural selection unless we had an extremely effective time machine.

A single mutation in an individual case (such as your 3 legged mouse example) would not be an example of evolution by natural selection. This immediate and sudden change shows a great misunderstanding of the subject (which is a very common mistake). It is like the "Boeing 747 made by a tornado in a junkyard" example or even worse that ridiculous "croco-duck" thing- they are simply inaccurate analogies- natural selection is the opposite of random.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


and the "missing link" to Australopithecus africanus?

Maybe this will help you and others understand.
If we place humans in an environment with low to almost no light and they keep on having children in that same environment for a few generations they will adapt to that environment and the DNA will remember what is needed to survive in that environment and improve it as more generations are produced. You would have humans that can see in the dark, like other animals, their skin would be different than ours and adapted to not receive vitamin D from the sun.

Now, take a group of humans and place them in an environment that is only water, come back a few thousand years and check on them, would they look anything like the humans you left there?

By the way, I do believe that humans were tampered with or given a push by a higher intelligence but not that we were created as we are now.

What part of creationism explains this?

reply to post by iterationzero


wow so most dinosaurs got wiped out but turned into the Hoatzin amazing, while the dinosaurs that survived stayed as dinosaurs

reply to post by Elieser


but humans would die off before the mutations could take place

reply to post by ZeussusZ


Okay, time for this list of hominid fossils we have in chronological order starting with the most recent.

Homo sapiens sapiens
Homo floresiensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo antecessor
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo georgicus
Homo habilis
Australopithecus boisei
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus sediba
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus africanus
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus anamensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Sahelanthropus tchadensis

Evolution is more of a debate. I dont think known facts exist.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


ever heard of nuclear radiation?

Another link in the fossil records is the giant sloth

Megatherium

reply to post by Xcalibur254


still got that damn missing link

reply to post by gossipnancy


You are the fact.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


And the sloth is still a sloth, just much smaller.

reply to post by Elieser


That's more in line with Lamarck's theory of evolution which was dropped in favor of Darwin's. A trait doesn't emerge due to the environment an individual is in. Instead an individual might be born with a slight advantage over other members of the species, for example someone might be born that has slightly better darkvision or can hold their breath longer. This then makes them a more highly sought after breeding partner and will give them a better chance of passing on their genes. However, the trait that made them a more desirable breeding partner was not due to the environment they lived in, but a random mutation that had no influence from their environment. If they had lived anywhere else they would have developed the same mutation, but it wouldn't have helped them in procuring a mate.

reply to post by ZeussusZ


I'm not sure what you're looking for at this point and I don't think you know either. Instead I think you're just spouting rhetoric you have heard before and if I presented to you what you were looking for (which I have) you wouldn't know it.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


It has also been proven that humans lived alongside Neanderthals. No evolution in this example.

www.pbs.org...

reply to post by Xcalibur254


the missing link to prove this stuff your saying

reply to post by UniverSoul

I have heard that nuclear radiation kills and maims. It does not make a creature stronger, smarter, or better adapted to live on.