religion

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And so your proof for that is?????

Here's my proof that it did not evolve into an amphibian.

Buy a plain ticket to Africa, find a guide to take you into the bush.
Ask him to find point you to the nearest lungfish. Find the lungfish.
Realize that lungfish still exist.
Look around for the fossils that show lungfish becoming amphibians.
Find none, return home.

Wait. Are you actually implying that if a member of a species evolves that the species it branched off of, necessarily disappears? Wow. Just wow.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am not sure what you are asking for because your question is malformed. I will try to answer it anyway.

"Find me just one traditional species in the fossil record."
I am assuming you mean transitional. As I said before, every fossil we find was or had the potential to be a transitional fossil. You seem to think that one day a fish gave birth to a full blown lizard and I am suppose to show you that fossil. That isnt what evolution claims happens. You are asking for something that is nonsensical.

Transitional fossils > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils

Of many species small and large, we have many fossils preserved but _no transitional forms_. The archæopteryx, a bird with a feathered tail, is the only alleged transitional form between the reptiles and the birds. Only two specimens of this same animal have been found. This could easily be an exceptional species of created birds differing no more from the normal bird than the ostrich or humming bird. If there were transitional forms we ought to have them by the millions. No transitional forms have been found between reptiles and mammals; and we have seen that there are no reliable forms between man and mammals. The numerous missing links make a chain impossible. Evolution is not simply growth or change, but the development of all species from one germ.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wait. Are you actually implying that if a member of a species evolves that the species it branched off of, necessarily disappears? Wow. Just wow.

No I am saying that the lungfish remains unchanged un-evolved over millions of years according to your theory. Yet certain members of its species diverged and became a new kind of animal , amphibians. Yet we do not see the transitional fossils.

All we see is a lungfish. To make the leap from fish to amphibian takes much more than special adaptation of a lung like gill.

Consider: at what point and for what reason did a fish that does not developed from a larvae stage begin to have larvae?

[RobotElvis]

I think you guys need to call for backup here. Your getting soloed by a "creationist".

[Dior]

You guys realize that calling the natural sciences "a belief system that may be wrong" instantly puts the claim of God(s) part of a belief system that may be wrong.

Essentially you guys are saying faith, including your own, may be put on the wrong thing, thereby making your god pissed at you for admitting your own faith may be wrong as well.

Just throwing that out there.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

There is no transition. The lungfish becomes the amphibian.

You don't understand even these basic concepts.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Of many species small and large, we have many fossils preserved but _no transitional forms_. The archæopteryx, a bird with a feathered tail, is the only alleged transitional form between the reptiles and the birds. Only two specimens of this same animal have been found. This could easily be an exceptional species of created birds differing no more from the normal bird than the ostrich or humming bird. If there were transitional forms we ought to have them by the millions. No transitional forms have been found between reptiles and mammals; and we have seen that there are no reliable forms between man and mammals. The numerous missing links make a chain impossible. Evolution is not simply growth or change, but the development of all species from one germ.

What part of every fossil we have found is or had the potential to be a transitional fossil did you not understand? You act as if we should find a half duck half alligator but that isnt what evolution posits.

[paulgiamatti]

Yeah, I think this conversation is starting to die down a bit, especially when Robot's only sympathizer is someone who thinks skeptical, scientific inquiry is literally the same thing as faith without evidence.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is no transition. The lungfish becomes the amphibian.

You don't understand even these basic concepts.

How does the lung fish become the amphibian? Does it happen all at once? Suddenly in one day the lungfish becomes a fully formed amphibian? Does the lungfish give birth to a new kind of animal, a fully formed amphibian?

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is no transition. The lungfish becomes the amphibian.

You don't understand even these basic concepts.

So how does that happen? Will dogs become cats one day?
You make a claim without proof.

Maybe it was magic.

Abracadabra! Watch as this fish becomes an amphibian! I am the great Darwini!