New whale fossil represents intermediate stage between foot-powered and tail-powered swimming

a reply to: Raggedyman

Only because you are blind. I'm dealing with enough # IRL, you're not worth my time.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Raggedyman

Only because you are blind. I'm dealing with enough # IRL, you're not worth my time.

I am thankful for that
Thankful you will leave me alone
Hope your real life dramas sort themselves out
Cheers

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: dragonridr

Can you show me repeatable observable and testable science for evolution
Sounds easy to you
The argument ends

Go do science and win it for evolutionists everywhere

Talk big but it’s just talk in the end

Yes you can start here but it requires studying on your behalf and i suspect that is not likely.

www.nas.edu...

a reply to: dragonridr

Study?
You provided a link, nothing on that page is repeatable or observable evidence, diddle squat, nothing and you act like you have studied
You just chose a blind link, it has nothing, valueless, you ask me to study that
What a joke

Please try again

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: dragonridr

Study?
You provided a link, nothing on that page is repeatable or observable evidence, diddle squat, nothing and you act like you have studied
You just chose a blind link, it has nothing, valueless, you ask me to study that
What a joke

Please try again

Just the response I suspected Those books will introduce you to the current state of evolution in science. you want to argue without any basis in scientific knowledge. you have the internet there is thousands and thousands of scientific papers literature but if you dont even bother to look at them than no point in even bothering to discuss it.

You are just showing your lack of knowledge in continuing to discuss a topic you know nothing about. That was just the beginning we could get into cubn variants etc. However it requires at least a basic understanding of science.

a reply to: dragonridr

They are theory, I asked for scientific evidence, it has to be repetable, observable and testable
If you don’t know the difference then don’t waste my time

You didn’t read what you posted, that is obvious

a reply to: Raggedyman

Using google correctly can make a world of a difference for you.

Simply search "instances of observed speciation"

www.talkorigins.org...

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

There, see how easy that was, is that the sort of evidence you want?

Furthermore, the fossil record paints a picture of literally evolution captured in time.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Puppylove

Listen Pups, go get science, your opinion is irrelevant
As are your fossils with DNAA,
I asked for real scientific evidence and that’s unreasonable, really

DNA in fossil, I never 😬, show me🤫🤣

The oldest recovered DNA is nearly 400Ka and comes from Sima de los Huesos, a site in Atapuerca Spain. Originally the remains were thought to be archaic Neanderthal based on morphology but once the DNA was compared to various Neanderthal samples and the recently uncovered genome of Denisovans, the DNA from Sima de los Huesos matches the Denisovans far more closely.

Given the correct preservation conditions, DNA can survive for hundreds of thousands of years. The entire Denisovan genome was recovered from a knuckle and a tooth. These are facts, not my personal opinion.

For further reading, look at what Svante Pääbo and his team are doing at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Science.

a reply to: peter vlar

Wow perfect DNA saved over millions of years, really?
Sounds like the earth is not really as old as dating methods indicate
Are you saying dating methods are wrong
Are you propositioning a young earth?
Turncoat

Perfect DNA, really?
You can’t be that silly Pete, you are playing a joke, just for giggles

You are not that dumb Pete, even I know that
Or are you?

a reply to: strongfp

There are plenty of creation websites that refute your childish links, go at em boy

a reply to: Raggedyman

OK, I'll ignore your derogatory slurs, and ask for you to share those links.

a reply to: strongfp

Strong, I have a life
I also understand the issue with creation and evolution
There are plenty of posts and threads here on ats

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

Wow perfect DNA saved over millions of years, really?
Sounds like the earth is not really as old as dating methods indicate
Are you saying dating methods are wrong
Are you propositioning a young earth?
Turncoat

Perfect DNA, really?
You can’t be that silly Pete, you are playing a joke, just for giggles

You are not that dumb Pete, even I know that
Or are you?

If you can’t have a logical discussion without relying on condescending quips, lies and mockery to cover up the fact that you can’t refute the science, then why bother posting?

a reply to: peter vlar

It's all they have. Just walk away.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Then you are welcome to concede from this discussion if you have nothing to refute or rebuttal. Otherwise don't expect replies to pure ignorance towards a subject. That's how science works, you either put up and fight for your theory, if it's wrong, so be it, get up, dust yourself off and learn from the mistakes. You are doing the exact opposite.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: peter vlar

It's all they have. Just walk away.

Oh, I’m all to familiar with the tactics employed around here. I tend to reply because there are far more people lurking than posting and I can’t in good conscience leave such idiocy to go unchallenged. DNA can retain viability for 6.83 million years so mocking the ability to obtain ancient genetics from Neanderthal, Denisovans and evening older members of our Genus is born solely of willful ignorance of the highest order. The information is widely available from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology. Then there are amazing programs like the on at the University of Witwatersrand in S. Africa allows anyone with a 3D printer to print out the 3D scan of all of the Homo Naledi remains in their collection and are planning to make their entire inventory available eventually. Then there are countless papers written by Scante Paabo who developed the first method for extracting ancient genetics and in turn deciphered the entire Neanderthal genome. His book on Neanderthal goes into great detail as to exactly how they developed the technique and how they were able to get the results confirmed and reproduced independently, the very thing Raggedyman claims never occurs.

a reply to: peter vlar

In that case I wish you the best.

a reply to: Puppylove

I’ve stocked up on my migraine meds and ice packs so fingers crossed!

a reply to: peter vlar

To much tv and movie magic I think

Ancient DNA (aDNA) is DNA isolated from ancient specimens.[1][2] Due to degradation processes (including cross-linking, deamination and fragmentation) ancient DNA is more degraded in comparison with contemporary genetic material.[3] Even under the best preservation conditions, there is an upper boundary of 0.4–1.5 million years for a sample to contain sufficient DNA for sequencing technologies.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Your argument is invalid
3D printing, irrelevant

Just talk and poor science

a reply to: strongfp

You win, I don’t care
It’s of no value to me what you want to believe