I have met Chuck face to face. He seems like a very nice guy. Some people have a problem with him for his personal beliefs. Not sure I believe in evolution either, no fossil evidence to support it but that's another topic.
You do know, that's not true don't you? Evolution is literally one of the most proven scientific theories there is!
You do know that when Origin of the Species was published, its biggest critics weren't pastors but paleontologists. Darwin admitted they were right. The great weakness in his theory was the lack of fossil evidence. that's still true today. All fossil evidence shows animals remaining unchanged for millions of years then suddenly disappearing. Almost as if there was a meteor shower or maybe a flood or something.
Have you talked to any palaeontologist recently? Because that is very much not true, Darwin said there wasn't much evidence yet, and in the intervening years a lot of evidence has been collected, and that hasn't been a single piece of evidence collected that refutes it. That includes fossils, and the entire science of genetics. This may help you (all the crash courses are great)
No fossil evidence supports Darwin either. Species remained largely unchanged for millions of years then disappeared according to all evidence collected.
I've literally just given you pages and pages of evidence to the contry. How do you think dog breeds occurred?
Dog breeds are the result of eugenics. That's why so called pure breds have lots of problems. Mutts are the most natural dog. I have studied dinosaurs since I was a kid. That's how I know about fossil evidence and how it doesent support evolution. Species remain unchanged for millions of years then disappear. How does that support evolution.
Eugenics is just managed Darwinism, the mechanism is exactly the same, but direction is artificial. Evolution of dinosaurs - Wikipedia The facts say they do change, they evolved, and that can be tracked over time.
You've claimed evolution isn't real, and that dinosaurs didn't change over time, I've presented a large amount of information which says they did. The adult thing to do would be continue your "research" and give me a honest reply.
This... simply isn't true. Immediately after Darwin published his Origin of the Species, the objection that people raised is that they should see transitional forms between major groups of animals. It's important to understand where fossil hunting was at that point in time. It was only recently that scientists had accepted that animals could go extinct, and five years earlier they had exhibited these monstrosities: as accurate representations of this animal: The great bone wars between Marsh and Cope wouldn't begin for another decade. So the fact that we hadn't found transitional fossils by 1859 isn't really surprising. But four years later, they found something spectacular. What Darwin's theory required was that there would be organisms with traits that resembled older groups of critters, and newer groups. You would expect to find something that had the characteristics of both a reptile and a bird, for example. That prediction was supported when they found Archaeopteryx lithographica in a quarry in Germany. The waters of the ancient Jurassic extended into Germany, where coral, formaniferans, and molluscs created perhaps some of the most perfect deposits for forming well preserved fossils. It was in this quarry that they discovered a very curious organism; it had feathers, but it also had teeth, claws, and a segmented tail. Arguments have raged for 150 years as to whether it was more of a bird or a dinosaur precisely because it fits so neatly in the middle. In fact, earlier specimens had been found in the same rock formations but were thought to belong to a dinosaur named Compsognathus. To be continued. Next up, documenting evolutionary changes in fossils, and the modern search for transitional creatures.
So fossils are incredibly, incredibly rare. Sometimes you get soft body impressions, like this fossil jellyfish: But most of the time only the harder bits of an organism are able to fossilize. Lots of teeth, bones, shells. Parts that scavengers don't like that fall into the perfect conditions by which minerals are able to replace the organic matter and turn these parts into rock. So even though Tyrannosaurus rex lived in an area with just the right conditions for forming fossils, out of the millions of individual Tyrannosaurs (figure the average lifespan for a species is around 4 million years, T rex lived to be about 30, each generation would need at least 10,000 individuals to sustain themselves, you get 13.3 billion individual Tyrannosaurs, and that's the lower end of the estimate) that existed and the massive amount of public interest and search for these creatures, only around 50 incomplete skeletons have been found. Couple that with the fact that you can't really be sure if changes in the skeleton represent speciation events, adaptations, or simply differences between individuals, males and females, adults and juveniles, and you don't have a very good system for studying evolution in the fossil record. Think about it, if Peter Dinklage and the late Michael Clark Duncan were both fossilized and represented the only two specimens of humanity, well, you might make some erroneous conclusions about whether they were part of the same species. This has happened before - Triceratops and Torosaurus are two genera of ceratopsian dinosaurs that have been collapsed into one genus (last I heard, that might change) because they believed that Triceratops represents the female of the species while Torosaurus is the male. We're fortunate that we do have some animals that fossilize EXTREMELY well - the humble molluscs. Snails, trilobites, ammonites, nautiloids, etc. all have extremely hard bodies that turn into stone very easily. So we can look at a given rock bed and see speciation events happen as we ascend the different layers. These species weren't stable at all!
A: Evolution isn't true. B: Here is a gigantic amount of scientific evidence to show it is. A: Anyway, we're going off topic here... I think the translation of that is, the evidence is overwhelming, but to swallows pride and accept the immensely presented evidence is too much- engage operation diversion.
So what about the modern search for transitional fossils? Enter the scientist Neil Shubin. Shubin is famous for discovering this goofy little guy, Tiktaalik roseae. Look at him smilin! Ain't he cute? OK so, goofy frog looking dude, why is he important? Let's start by talking about arms. When you look at a human skeleton, you can look at the arm. One upper arm bone is followed by two lower arm bones, then many little bones that make up the hand. One, two, then many. This construction isn't unique to humans. Doesn't matter where you look, you see it again and again. http://www.sussexvt.k12.de.us/science/evolution/Evidence%20for%20Evolution_files/image002.gif[/imq] One, two, many. So how far can we trace back that pattern? Turns out pretty far. About 365 million years ago there was another amphibian, Ichthyostega. Ichthyostega was a goofy little predator that probably wasn't very good at walking at all. It's hind limbs could likely only flop it about. But when you look at its arms, you see the same pattern - one, two, many. [img]https://www2.gwu.edu/~darwin/BiSc151/Tetrapods/hand.GIF We knew that this was the same arrangement of bones that can be found in a group of fish called sarcopterygians, or lobe finned fish. Long thought to be extinct, in the 50s or 60s we discovered the only living representative, the coelacanth. So what does a lobe finned fish arm look like? Look at the Eusthenepteron, you can see the same one, two, many pattern. But there's a problem. If you look at the full skeleton, you'll see that these one, two, many fins fuse to the skull, while in Ichthyostega, the shoulder is detached. So back to Shubin. According to evolutionary theory, Shubin knew there had to be something with a more primitive arrangement of bones, but with a detached shoulder bone. He knew that Eusthenepteron lived 385 million years ago, while Ichthyostega lived 365 million years ago. He knew that both of these creatures lived in shallow swamps. So he went to Newfoundland, near the arctic, to examine rocks that were 375 million years old and were formed from shallow swamps. That's where he found Tiktaalik roseae in all its glory. Why that specific organism would appear in those specific rocks from that specific time period with this important specific transitional feature can only be explained in light of evolutionary theory. What transitional feature? The detached shoulder with a primitive arrangement of hand bones. TO BE CONTINUED Next up - can we see the same pattern of evolution in biochemistry? Just what are the genetics that allow us to go from fins to limbs?
Even something like this is interesting for evolution but nigh-on impossible to explain with creationism: Hominid skull evolution.
