1 2
#308614
Necronomikron
In order to understand the theory of evolution, you must first understand the basic principles behind the fact of evolution.
There's plenty of fossil evidence for what you seek - the mammals evolved from a type of reptile.
In fact, I sent him an email with this:
You know, if you'd like to know more about evolution, you can see the following:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html < In order to understand the Theory of Evolution, you must first understand the Fact of Evolution.
Now, that out of the way, read this one:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Which gives detailed evidence for Common Descent. (Commonly referred to as the Theory of Evolution).
If you don't understand, then don't condemn it out of ignorance. It just makes you look the fool.
Not that he'll understand a word of it.
10/12/2007 5:47:22 PM
#308619
Star Cluster
1) So... fish just sprout legs out of convenience, huh?
No, that's not how it happened and there is about as much likelihood of it happening as there is you sprouting a brain.
10/12/2007 6:06:28 PM
#308620
Caustic Gnostic
I agree, imagination can be fun.
Hmmm. nice bubbles on that mermaid yonder...
10/12/2007 6:06:44 PM
#308621
anti-nonsense
*sigh* say it with me folks.....
EVOLUTION DOESN'T FUCKING WORK THAT WAY!
10/12/2007 6:12:08 PM
#308622
anevilmeme
"So....fush just sprout legs out of convienience, huh?"
No that's merely the badly constructed fundie strawman version of evolution.
10/12/2007 6:18:27 PM
#308623
Osiris
Do I have to say?
EVOLUTION DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!
10/12/2007 6:22:50 PM
#308625
Brian X
1. Actually, the fish with half-grown legs got around the water just fine. Webbed feet and all.
2. They didn't. The first mammal came from a warm-blooded reptile-like thing.
10/12/2007 6:25:54 PM
#308626
cool cats
Fundy evolution
10/12/2007 6:26:23 PM
#308657
Old Viking
If you google "transitional species" you'll get 1,200,000 hits. Not bad considering they don't exist.
10/12/2007 7:13:14 PM
#308658
Mr Smith
1) Lung fish.
It's quite a useful thing to be able to survive out of the water and make it to another pool of water where your babies will survive.
2) That was probably a fish that had developed a coating for it's eggs that helped them survive drying out. A fish that was mobile on land. A fish whose scales had developed to a point where it could contain its own moisture. A fish that could regulate its own body temperature.
And guess what? You can see species that can do each of those things today.
10/12/2007 7:13:30 PM
#308684
Sagger
Old Viking: If you google "transitional species" you'll get 1,200,000 hits. Not bad considering they don't exist.
That's nothing. Google 'God' and you get 413 million... ;D
/yes I know transitional forms exist
/work with me here
10/12/2007 7:54:01 PM
#308686
BreeStar
"I bet that if such a transformation did occur, the intermediary species would be quite hindered, having half-grown legs that impeded its ability to swim while not being able to walk yet."
ORLY?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper
10/12/2007 8:10:54 PM
#308687
tracer
I'm convinced this guy is Ted Holden.
10/12/2007 8:13:42 PM
#308693
thisisyou3
@ Sagger
I put in "God" and only got 171,000,000 hits, the third of which is:
godisimaginary.com
:P
10/12/2007 8:31:10 PM
#308716
Deriamis
So... fish just sprout legs out of convenience, huh?
Oh, just like you sprouted a pair of hands? There are plenty of videos on YouTube that demonstrate exactly how "fish just sprout legs". Surely even you can find one and comprehend it.
At what point did the fish (that sprouted legs and grew lungs) give birth to a mammal?
Look for that video and stop asking stupid questions.
I bet that really freaked out the mother when she realized there was no way to nurse them.
When you don't know something, you're best off looking for something to educate yourself with. If you did that, you might not make yourself look like such a moron when you attempt intelligent conversation - but probably not.
Of course there's no fossil evidence for such an intermediary creature, but imagination can be fun
Except that there is, but go ahead and imagine otherwise if you want to. Like you say ignor-ah, imagination can be fun!
10/12/2007 9:09:49 PM
#308736
holly
...retard...
10/12/2007 9:41:24 PM
#308757
King Duncan
1) You're a retard.
2) Read about evolution before you try and discredit it.
10/12/2007 10:24:03 PM
#308761
Caustic Gnostic
Fish: Go Go Gadget Legs!
Bat: Mommy?
10/12/2007 10:29:44 PM
#308768
Vampirehummingbird
Read and learn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
10/12/2007 11:03:10 PM
#308785
Necronomikron
He finally responded, and sent back this:
Thank you for your input!
We have indeed read many of the articles on the talkorigins.org website, and their corresponding refutations at http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp.
It certainly is interesting to follow the debate, from two philosophical points of view. However, since evolutionists still cannot explain or prove the possibilty of abiogenesis (formation of life from inanimate matter), cannot explain or prove the transition from single celled organisms to multicellular organisms, or explain or prove the transition from either lizards to mammals or lizards to birds, the theory of evolution is based on a high degree of faith, and we will maintain our view that evolution is essentially a belief system.
Thanks for reading, and have a great day!
...OK.
So, I sent him this:
The theory of evolution doesn't address the issue of life. In other words, the Theory of Evolution doesn't care how life began, it just explains what happened afterwards. Abiogenesis is one theory on the origin of life.
As for transitions, see this portion:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
The multicellular gap is kind of addressed by colonies. Cellular colonies could have easily given rise to multicellular organisms.
A more complicated Cellular colony is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slime_mould
Specific Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictyostelids
Here's a question for you: How do you explain the existence of these transitional fossils?
10/13/2007 12:04:48 AM
#308795
Brian X
re Nekronomikron's post:
What do they mean we don't know how we got from unicellular to multicellular? Have they never heard of Volvox, evidently a recent evolution from Chlamydomonas? Or, just for shits and giggles going the other way, Myxozoa? (Or, even better, the freakishly successful genetic trainwreck Helacyton gartleri, aka some poor woman's cervical cancer run wild in bio labs?)
10/13/2007 12:36:33 AM
#308821
Anon
Wow... a website dedicated to criticizing evolution, yet the author obviously knows nothing about how evolution works. Knock me over with a feather.
Real life != Pokemon
10/13/2007 2:34:36 AM
#308884
Tiny Bulcher
@ Necronomikron: *Is* it Ted Holden?
10/13/2007 5:17:37 AM
#308892
Thundersqueaks
@Necronomikron:
You're going to get terrible scarring on your forehead from that brick wall.
10/13/2007 5:46:10 AM
#308910
Where did you get that piece of information that doesn't appear anywhere?(God knows from which magazine you've misinterpreted it)
10/13/2007 6:25:48 AM
1 2