It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That does not show evolution since only evolutionists argue that all those are of the same lineage of bipeds. I see many who COULD be related but a visual observation of skeletal remains is not enough to claim that they are in fact all derivative of one another.
Is there genetic evidence to support such claims? NO. Is there transitional fossils to prove such a claim of one leading into the other? NO. By yours and evolutionary theorists logic, all primates alive today sharing our world with us if dug up in a thousand years would be stages leading into us. The fact that there are and always have been many types of primates living side by side with us says that everyone of those examples could simply be a separate species. In fact as new species of hominids are discovered the family tree of humanity is given MORE branches of separate "evolutionary" directions. If evolution is correct then yes they are all separate evolutionary dead ends....or if common sense tells us anything, they are separate species with SIMILAR characteristics which they adapted to survive in similar environments.
There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.
YET evolutionary theorists embrace this concept entirely. If not there would be no argument between creationists and evolutionists. It could be peacefully said that GOD created life and evolution changed it.....YET they always incorporate it into their argument. Dont back pedal now. You mean to tell me you have never argued this with a creationists before or after arguing evolution...? That would be a lie if you said NEVER....hence why I simply include it. It is used to support evolutionary theory seamlessly.
NO, if there is no proof or there is simply inconclusive evidence....to call it fact is faith. You dont know but choose to believe it is so....very good at honoring the scientific process...
I NEVER said I was a proponent of this idea. I have actually studied the bible and know that there are all sorts of issues as far as translation errors and marginalia errors to simple read a king james version and think 10 thousand years is what was originally allotted. If you even care the Hebrew words used over and over again mean a period of time....not a concrete notion of this or that amount of time. Af far as the order of things being created...they werent that far off. The evidence actually agrees with the order of creation as proposed by the bible....FYI
like to keep an open mind...its how we learn.
Again, then why do evolutionists always use it when detracting from the arguments of creationists and to support their claim of a non creationists view of life and its process.
Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up. There may also be multiple pathways to producing naturally occurring "life". Depending, of course, on the definition of life. This is something that Ben Stein is apparently willfully ignorant of.
An objection to the distinction is that it is goalpost moving but this would only be true if evolution at some point did try to explain the origin of life and then people moved away from it. This is not the case at all. Evolutionary theory started with the observation of the mutability of species - a property that only exists once life has begun, indeed later definitions of "life" have often used the ability to evolve as a key component. This, of course, has been known for some time as animals and crops have been selectively bred for thousands of years. Later, the idea was refined by Charles Darwin in the form of natural selection, where nature provides the selection criteria to drive evolution. At no point was evolution, nor natural selection, about explaining the origin of life.
so its a hundred year old best guess by the son of a mathematician who counted on the fossil record proving him right....which it didn't and NEVER will....and other disciplines have shown him to be wrong.
While the term has remained in use amongst scientific authors when referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been argued that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory. For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of Gregor Mendel, and as a result had only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity. He naturally had no inkling of yet more recent developments and, like Mendel himself, knew nothing of genetic drift for example.
All those detail why the Miller/Urey experiment and abiogenesis is entirely flawed. Details on the actual experiment are available on this thing called the INTERNET. Read it as I have and know the findings as I do. They did not produce the 20 necessary proteins and amino acids. They produced SOME....4 and under less than genuine circumstances