Why do people deny evolution?

What do you want to say with this???

No, why does it bother you? If 99% of dead creatures ended up as fossils this would be a dead planet. 99.99% of carbon life forms are recycled into new carbon life forms. That means they don't leave fossils behind.

I would love to see you jump off a tall building to prove that statement.

As I said earlier, fossils are the product of GEOLOGY, not biology. Whether a fossil appears or not has nothing to do with its evolutionary stance. A fossil is a lucky break (for us) to catch a snapshot in time of lifes road on this planet.

Its a very important component of evidence in a Darwinian sense. If you don't wish to accept the evidence, you can line up with Quahog ovr there (just don't print your messages in huge type with boldface, itmakes him appear as if hes screaming)

The fact that we don't see any mammals or birds in the Paleozoic, or that we don't see amphibians and reptiles until the mid Devonian and the Mississippean respectively.


PS, does Newtons Law not work?? hmm. Is the gravitational constant not valid???

Im sorry, I thought you were ignoring me.
How can I help you?

I see that you've stopped posting in super sized Crayon black letters. Does that mean that your antipsychotic meds are finally kicking in?

Im so happy that youre improving.

Refer to my post, The purpose or meaning of discussion

yes lol

But you are not!!!!!





where is the ******* evidence mate?!!!

Ive read the paper about that Polish set of "trcks", there is no real evidence that these tracks are

1of a tetrpod
2are even real trcks

3there is no animal associated with those tracks as the news article shows

I was talking to a colleague who is a paleontologist nd he stated that the discussion and review of this paper has been met with general interest but skepticism.

"With exceptional claims we demand exceptional evidence"

Even if this were a valid claim, the tracks of lungfish show as these little "dots" on water margin areas.

ANother thing is that, again, assuming the tracks are real and of a tertrapod, (not a Tiktaalik -like "fishopod" or a lungfish or even a new fossil specimen of transitional form, we can actually assemble an entire suite of transitional or early lobe-finned fish from which tetrapods were derived.

As the guys who discovered Tiktaalik said, All sorts of transitional forms could be "walking around" in the shallow streams of the continental terrestrial middle Devonian for ten million years or more and (like the whole suite of hominids we see, life maybe didn't just favor one path in the early transitional times. It experimented with all sorts of body plans. The fossils we are left with, are mostly the losers

Wow. First, I did not say 99% of dead creatures, i said species. Second, fossils are not dead animals they are rocks, so the animals that they represent were "recycled". What bothers me is the mathimatical propability that the 99.9% of SPECIES that evolution predicts are not represented in the fossil record at the same ratio of 99.9% transitional and .01% stable species. As for you telling me to jump off a tall building to prove einsteins theory of relativety shows you have no idea what his theory is, which means you don't understand gravity or space time.

The real weakness of your argument is that all species deteriorate with the environment and time; you expect miracles that's not possible.
All science can do is work with what's actually available to study and arrive at the best educated guess with current knowledge. Past theories will be corrected when more information becomes available - through all the sciences.

Science cannot go beyond what is currently available - objectively. You want transitional states of all species - which is beyond reason or common sense.

Your challenge is weak and unrealistic.

O my that stupid one again!

But people like you who use this never explain exactly what they mean so you can move the goalposts any way you want!
no one even stated what he declares by 'exceptional'

How ******* convenient!


Just go with the evidence mate! There is NONE.

Of course the gravitational constant works. His math was correct but the theory of why objects moved towards each other is obviously proven false by relativity. As for the ratio of 99.9% of transitional fossils predicted by evolution maybe i am not wording it correctly. So if 99.9% of species are extinct and .01% are not lets figure out how many 99.9% is. we know of over 1 million species, many scientist predict between 1-100 million species alive today but not found. I think 10 million is a good place to start for the .01%. So if .01% is 10 million the 99.9% is 100000000000, that is 100 billion. If the .01% is 1 million then the 99.9% would be 10 billion species. So if there are 100 billion transitional species extinct why do we find so many of the same fossils over and over. And how can 10-100 billion species evolve in under 4.5 billion year?

I want 1 transitional fossil between 2 known fossils. Please

Ask all you wish; your demands can only be met if they exist. There are other methods to connect the two lines. That's only if you're open-minded about the totality of science.

Since we are all brainwashed to revere scientists, and all other conventional authorities, will we ever understand the difference between illusion and real?

I think your understanding of Newtonian Mechanics v relativity may be the problem. Newtonian Mechanics is a "special area of relativity" where all aspects of Newtonian principles are approximately correct at speeds much less than "c" ..AND, they are exactly correct for all bodies at rest .

But we can agree to disagree (Otherwise my field gravimeters are wrong).

The concepts of species estimation are base upon work mostly by microbiologists and entomolygists "filling" a field ecological network for any given ecosystem. I have no idea nor do I really get into the number of species.

Raup estimated that 5 Billion species lived on earth ,EXTINCTION,bad genes or bad luck(1992 NORTON PRESS).
Finding "large numbers of a few species" is a part of an ecological observation about ecosystems and limitations of resources.
We see many numbers (like pelecypods or crinoids or triceratops because they were animals that lived in assemblages or herds, so why isn't it logical that they got killed by the same event and were in a medium that promoted fossilization.

As another person said earlier. "If there were so many pecies out there, probably everything was transitional to something else"

We only give a term "transitional" when we find some fossils that lie somewhere between the structure of an older era v a younger era fossil.

Actually, if you were right about the number of species, wed only see the evolution of say 10 billion species in the last 700 million years since the dawn of the Ediacaran times. Complex life is even younger .
BTTW, "speciation" the way Darwin used it, is concerned with origins based upon transmutation of one species. Biologists don't even use the term speciation in this respect, they call it phyletic transformation

Im really not sure how many species really lived on earth, in the fossil record we are limited to only morphology differences and sometimes these morphology differences can be mere sexual dimorphism or even polymorphism (in the case of arthropods)

sonichell says:

Any hominim fossil between ardapithecus and us qualifies.

Or you could go to Wikipedia and look up "List of Transitional Fossils" and you'll get a hundred or so, most with photographs (and don't tell me to post it here--I have already, and like most tables it doesn't format well here, so just go to their list there).

you want fries with that?

If We present some more fossils that are transitional forms, then we create two more "gaps" according to the Creationist mind eh?

yeh, Im tired of posting real transitional fossils and then have the deniers just write in big letters that they want evidence.

If people are educable, they'll get it and their questions will be intelligent ones, so far, Im really disappointed in Creationist tap dancing.

"Reality" is a subject under philosophy. We're talking about natural sciences.

yes!