Evolutionists, how do you explain this?

How is it that evolutionist "scientists" look at a single jawbone or a thigh bone of some extinct animal and then somehow just "know" what the rest of the animal looked like?

Most images we have of extinct animals are artist renderings, based on one jawbone or thighbone!

Anybody can see that evolutionists operate not on evidence but on imagination and assumptions. If you feel otherwise please explain.

The other night it popped into my head: how the hell did insects evolve?

I'm not talking about the creatures themselves, I'm talking about this design where they all go thru a larval stage, and then nymph into their 'proper' creature form later.

The happenings to foster the blueprint for what would become the most diverse 'animal' family, seems like a real cluster-F to me.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I've wondered about insects too. (Was just reading about the bombardier beetle, what a fascinating creature!)

Evolutionists have many explanations about how they may have evolved but zero evidence

I don't think they ever claimed that their drawings are 100% accurate and I'm not sure how people drawing extinct animals disproves evolution but hey, here's an A for effort.

a reply to: firefromabove

I'm not even a big doubter about the overall premise of 'evolution', dont spend much time thinking about, but that case realm popped into head the other night.

I can observe 'evolution' in action daily on my property, a jungle where everything is in obsessive adaptation mode by design.

But from this same space ar these (often DAMN) creatures that there entire blueprint is a real mofo to sort out how they came to be supreme.

If they just hatched the way they are, like their 'far more' complex rivals, the reptiles, then it wouldn't even be 'a thing'.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'm not sure how people drawing extinct animals disproves evolution

That's not what I said

How can a single jawbone be the basis for an understanding of what the creature may have looked like

Evolutionists just magically know everything, don't they.

Remembering back to different things over the years, a number of times a species look has been changed with new evidence (Raptors for one) some have been found to not even exist. Its study, research, piecing evidence together the best we can without a time machine.

They dont find one bone and scream "this is what it looks like" they fine more, they study but with one bone they can piece together an appearance.

The more we find out the better our understanding.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The other night it popped into my head: how the hell did insects evolve?

I'm not talking about the creatures themselves, I'm talking about this design where they all go thru a larval stage, and then nymph into their 'proper' creature form later.

The happenings to foster the blueprint for what would become the most diverse 'animal' family, seems like a real cluster-F to me.

What is more amazing is this. When a caterpillar metamorphizes into a butterfly it turns into a completely liquid state inside its cocoon, and yet on coming out, the butterfly retains the memory of the caterpillar.

Okay, now that I've thought about it again, I expect there would be some supposed species chain from insects leading back to crustaceans, or the like from ocean culture, where 'all' such 'lower' creatures (and even 'most' the fish) do all sprout from nothingness, and undergo various larval form stages as 'plankton'.

But still, spiders are more crabs than bugs. And they tend to actually pretty much hatch as they will appear as adults.

And that totally vulnerable insect larval form stage isn't quite a good design. At all.

evolution is the most ridiculous theory I've heard.

They can't even explain how two species of different sex could evolve at the same time to breed without wild theories that make it sound even more stupid.

a reply to: xstealth

I've never heard how the male and female without fail always evolutionize in one moment at the same time, together.

I've never heard an explanation for that. What weird tales have you been told?

Are these tales scientific?

a reply to: Tinystarlight

everything was at one time asexual is the most acceptable non-logical theory I've been told.

originally posted by: xstealth
evolution is the most ridiculous theory I've heard.

They can't even explain how two species of different sex could evolve at the same time to breed without wild theories that make it sound even more stupid.

Slight mutation in a male / female survives long enough for them to breed, the mutation carries on down the line and changes, millions of variations later ... evolution. I do not understand why people think its a insane theory

a reply to: firefromabove

Because that's not what they do. You've generalised to the point of absurdity.

They can take a jaw bone and, within a fairly accurate degree of certainty, say the rest of the animal looked like X only because they have *previously found other fossil/bone records* of the same or similar animal.

Oh wait-- or do you guys on this thread also not believe in the fossil record? Wait - was that a trick by God as well?

originally posted by: thekaboose

originally posted by: xstealth
evolution is the most ridiculous theory I've heard.

They can't even explain how two species of different sex could evolve at the same time to breed without wild theories that make it sound even more stupid.

Slight mutation in a male / female survives long enough for them to breed, the mutation carries on down the line and changes, millions of variations later ... evolution. I do not understand why people think its a insane theory

Cool story, but...

What you speak of has never been observed.

Evolution really is a fairy tale for adults

a reply to: firefromabove

Here is an idea to look into: Comparative Anatomy

Comparative anatomy is the study of similarities and differences in the anatomy of different species. It is closely related to evolutionary biology and phylogeny[1] (the evolution of species).

originally posted by: thekaboose

originally posted by: xstealth
evolution is the most ridiculous theory I've heard.

They can't even explain how two species of different sex could evolve at the same time to breed without wild theories that make it sound even more stupid.

Slight mutation in a male / female survives long enough for them to breed, the mutation carries on down the line and changes, millions of variations later ... evolution. I do not understand why people think its a insane theory

Think about it. The earth is huge, what are the chances that rare species are going to be living during the same time, FIND EACH OTHER in this large world, have a successful conception, then breed more; but this has to happen for every species.

I mean I have a cricket fossil 80 million years old, you know how much this thing evolved in 80 million years? Not a bit, it's identical to the ones in my yard, and I wouldn't think crickets have reached some utopia where evolution could no longer benefit them.

Why do you guys thing the giants that are found are taken by the smithsonian and never seen again?

Giants would disprove everything taught about evolution and we've seen a cover up by scientists to keep the truth from ever coming out.

We dont have to be able to explain how this -clearly- higher lifeform attribute (male/female pollination) specifically came to be about in a evolutionary chain to realistically fathom that such an event dramatically accelerates the processes of 'evolution' with results such as dramatically accelerated 'creation' of new resulting species.

From a botany discipline perspective this view is a no brainer, and well documented across many other disciplines (including geology, and also the fossil record).

Given its n 'inherent' outcome of 'natural evolution' "design" (the design of self sustaining lifeforms), then its not beyond reason that chains (such as amphibians), over the course of millions o years, would eventually get on to their chains own 'isolated' 'Cambrian Explosion' events even with intense degrees of separation between 'where' & 'when' plants might have found genderology, and when se bugs ended up doing it.

a reply to: firefromabove

So you think that all of the fossils we find are just one thigh bone, or whatever other bone?

You don't think we find complete or almost complete fossils?!

Well Extra, Extra!, we do. In fact now we are finding entire fossilized mummies (like in a recent article on ATS).

When scientists piece together clues from less fragments, I would imagine they have knowledge of other similar species/organisms.

----

BTW, evolution does not dismiss the existence of a designer or creator.