Quote from: BADecker on July 13, 2018, 04:01:47 PM

Quote from: Astargath on July 13, 2018, 03:36:49 PM

Quote from: BADecker on July 13, 2018, 12:01:04 AM

Quote from: Astargath on July 12, 2018, 11:17:39 PM

''Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.''

I don't know how can someone keep saying the same shit after I gave him 20 different links to read about it. Some people are just stupid. There is no such thing as a missing link, they are called transitional fossils. A few examples of what you think doesn't exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examples

There you go with the same old crap again. Those fossils aren't transitional fossils because not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from, or transitioned to, for that matter.

If it is a transitional fossil, where is even one fossil - I mean, literally one... not one group... one - that was the immediately previous form that one of your transitional fossils transitioned from, or one of the direct forms that your transitional fossil transitioned to. Show us one, and prove that it was the ONE that your transitional fossil transitioned from or to.

You can't do it. There aren't any. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

''not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from'' So you want all the millions of fossils one after each other? Do you understand how difficult it is for a fossil to exist?

https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-we-found-the-missing-links-in-human-evolution

Anyways, we can still see how evolution works, shown in the first answer there. Unless of course you think it's a coincidence that the dating numbers and how the fossils look match correctly.

Who, besides you, says anything about an evolution fossil line-up? Just show one fossil that is the direct mutation of another fossil, that's all. Who cares where it came from?

Pick, as an example, some whale fossil that was the direct and immediate, previous ancestor to some other whale fossil. According to evolution theory, you couldn't tell the difference between the two animals from the fossils. Evolution theory says that the mutation would have to be too tiny to tell the difference by looking at the fossil. Even in Punctuated Evolution the difference would be too small to see in a fossil.

Now, if you had two, living whales, you might check their DNA to see the difference... the beneficial mutation. So, why hasn't anyone come up with something that they can prove is a beneficial mutation in a living creature, and not a simple adaptation?

The whole idea of using the fossil record for evolution studies is stupid, since there is no way to tell if a fossil is for-a-fact an evolutionary mutation of some other fossil, since their differences would be so small, and there is no way to check their DNA to make sure.

I don't know who started the idea of checking the fossil record. But if it was an evolutionist who did it, he was ignorant or just plain stupid. If it was a creationist, he was shrewd. Why? The fossil record can't be used on its own to prove or disprove evolution. The whole idea of using the fossil record is a distraction.

So, we are back to where we started. Prove it was evolution and not adaptation or something else. But remember in your proving... remember that it all acts by cause and effect, which means that even evolution - if it exists, somehow - is programmed in by whatever cause the universe in the Beginning. C&E alone show that...

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#69eeb2452d8d

I guess you have to accept evolution now.