@caissad4 said
Science and research is fascinating. The search for knowledge is never ending.

Not sure if you got the irony of how discovering new transitional species can, in their minds anyway, strengthen the argument of anti-evolutionists, but yes.

@bigdoggproblem said
Are they?

How would you know?

Have you ever been "skeptical" or "cynical" of anything?

If I come to you and attack you and your beliefs just to belittle without serious conversation, am I being an honest skeptic? I didn't become a Christian until I was 25 years old, before that I didn't attend church, I didn't even know or hang out with people who did. I can promise you I have been both about the Christian faith.

@kellyjay said
If I come to you and attack you and your beliefs just to belittle without serious conversation, am I being an honest skeptic? I didn't become a Christian until I was 25 years old, before that I didn't attend church, I didn't even know or hang out with people who did. I can promise you I have been both about the Christian faith.

I don't know.

You tell me.

Is your belittlement rooted in honest soul-searching, or are you just trying to score a conversational point?

@kellyjay said
You are missing the point, the process is supposed to be small changes over time, is it not? This would mean there wouldn't be a hand full of missing links between unique lifeforms today and the past, as if some sort of jump in evolution took place so one died off and another totally different and viable took its place. As the process is described there should be a st ...[text shortened]... on't need extraordinary proof, the day to day stuff is more than enough if you have an honest heart!

Some things all mammals (for example) need, such as a heart to pump the blood around. If a mammal was born without a heart it wouldn't survive, it would be an evolutionary dead - end, so all mammals have hearts, which points to a common ancestry. And then there are the genes, of course; we share common genes with other life forms. We and Chimpanzees share most of our genes, which indicates that we have diverged relatively recently, whereas we share less genes with Orang Utans, and Chimpanzees are more like us in terms of their genetic makeup than they are like Orang Utans, but the point is that we all share some genes, and therefore we are all related to a lesser or greater extent. Which also points to a common ancestor.

I'm sorry that I can't provide a complete and definitive fossil record for you, but science has to work with that which we happen to have thus far discovered.

Anyway, this is rational, deductive thought meeting superstition, so there's no place for us to meet. You will no doubt find a way to deny the findings of genetic science, so I leave you with your Adam and Eve, I'll stay with science.

@thinkofone said
Not sure if you got the irony of how discovering new transitional species can, in their minds anyway, strengthen the argument of anti-evolutionists, but yes.

That is an interesting perspective you have. Evolutionary studies are not about finding one single solution to end all study.
Finding evolutionary dead ends or finding a new branch all advance learning and understanding. It is how science works. One step at a time.
Anti-evolutionists are an evolutionary dead end, lol.
And I agree that "irony can be pretty ironic".

@indonesia-phil said
Some things all mammals (for example) need, such as a heart to pump the blood around. If a mammal was born without a heart it wouldn't survive, it would be an evolutionary dead - end, so all mammals have hearts, which points to a common ancestry. And then there are the genes, of course; we share common genes with other life forms. We and Chimpanzees share most of our g ...[text shortened]... deny the findings of genetic science, so I leave you with your Adam and Eve, I'll stay with science.

As I said, fossils are filled with just so stories and we don't need them. We can just look around us today and ask what should we see? Shouldn't there be a large long variety of all the different forms, where they should be going back from the latest model to the earliest one that is still living? We don't see that with any lifeform and we should be seeing it with all of them.

Missing a heart would not be a small evolutionary change it would be a complete dead end, not due to a lot of small changes, but one very large one.

@kellyjay said
As I said, fossils are filled with just so stories and we don't need them. We can just look around us today and ask what should we see? Shouldn't there be a large long variety of all the different forms, where they should be going back from the latest model to the earliest one that is still living? We don't see that with any lifeform and we should be seeing it with all of t ...[text shortened]... y change it would be a complete dead end, not due to a lot of small changes, but one very large one.

What do you mean "we don't need them", ignorant one.
Did you even attend any kind of a school in your life ???
Are you mentally defective ??
Did science hurt you when you were young ? Show me on this doll where science hurt you.
Were your parents brother and sister ?
Were your grandparents brother and sister ?
Did you have your children vaccinated ?
Did you have a traumatic brain injury as a child ?
Did you ever get nominated for Bible Fool of the Month by Answers in Genesis ?
Do you regularly contribute to the Ken Ham Ministry ?
Just wondering .

@bigdoggproblem said
I don't know.

You tell me.

Is your belittlement rooted in honest soul-searching, or are you just trying to score a conversational point?

Where was I belittling?

@caissad4 said
What do you mean "we don't need them", ignorant one.
Did you even attend any kind of a school in your life ???
Are you mentally defective ??
Did science hurt you when you were young ? Show me on this doll where science hurt you.
Were your parents brother and sister ?
Were your grandparents brother and sister ?
Did you have your children vaccinated ?
Did you have a t ...[text shortened]... nth by Answers in Genesis ?
Do you regularly contribute to the Ken Ham Ministry ?
Just wondering .

For the point I was making today is all that is required to look at, where are all of the lifeforms we should be seeing that we don't? You don't see a string of lifeforms with small changes in them running around today all advancing the progression through evolution, instead all fully intact unique lifeforms are here. Can you stay on topic?

@kellyjay said
For the point I was making today is all that is required to look at, where are all of the lifeforms we should be seeing that we don't? You don't see a string of lifeforms with small changes in them running around today all advancing the progression through evolution, instead all fully intact unique lifeforms are here. Can you stay on topic?

Evolution takes time. Sometimes hundreds of thousands of years. Sometimes more.
Just because you cannot see this happening quickly doesn't mean it is not happening. You are clearly not educated enough to understand since you keep insisting that you need to see this happening before your eyes. You ain't never seen no Jesus but you believe he existed.

@indonesia-phil said
Some things all mammals (for example) need, such as a heart to pump the blood around. If a mammal was born without a heart it wouldn't survive, it would be an evolutionary dead - end, so all mammals have hearts, which points to a common ancestry. And then there are the genes, of course; we share common genes with other life forms. We and Chimpanzees share most of our g ...[text shortened]... deny the findings of genetic science, so I leave you with your Adam and Eve, I'll stay with science.

Did I read somewhere that the common housefly shares 90% of its DNA with a Trump supporter?

@caissad4 said
That is an interesting perspective you have. Evolutionary studies are not about finding one single solution to end all study.
Finding evolutionary dead ends or finding a new branch all advance learning and understanding. It is how science works. One step at a time.
Anti-evolutionists are an evolutionary dead end, lol.
And I agree that "irony can be pretty ironic".

I understand how science works.

I'll try one last time.

Anti-evolutionists often yammer on about there being so many "missing links" - "Where are the missing links?". So if there are X gaps in the fossil record and science were to fill each of those gaps, then there would be 2X gaps in the fossil record. The anti-evolutionists would then have twice as many "missing links" to yammer on about.

It's not rational. But then, there's nothing rational about the position of anti-evolutionists. There's a willful ignorance at play there.

@thinkofone said
I understand how science works.

I'll try one last time.

Anti-evolutionists often yammer on about there being so many "missing links" - "Where are the missing links?". So if there are X gaps in the fossil record and science were to fill each of those gaps, then there would be 2X gaps in the fossil record. The anti-evolutionists would then have twice as many "missing ...[text shortened]... othing rational about the position of anti-evolutionists. There's a willful ignorance at play there.

Why would it be even remotely important what anti-science, anti-evolutionists purport to think ? Scientific history shows that your hypothetical premise of every transitional fossil creating more "missing links" is not realistic. It sounds like that old math problem , "If you have a penny and double it every day etc, etc".
Evolution is science, religion is an substantiated belief.

@indonesia-phil said
Some things all mammals (for example) need, such as a heart to pump the blood around. If a mammal was born without a heart it wouldn't survive, it would be an evolutionary dead - end, so all mammals have hearts, which points to a common ancestry. And then there are the genes, of course; we share common genes with other life forms. We and Chimpanzees share most of our g ...[text shortened]... deny the findings of genetic science, so I leave you with your Adam and Eve, I'll stay with science.

Hi. Sorry but your example of all mammals having hearts because of a common ancestor is wrong. We all have hearts because we live on a planet that has gravity and an atmosphere and we all need a heart to keep us alive. It is because of God's wisdom in design that all animals naturally have things in common because we all have to or we could never live on this planet.
If you have proof that the fossil record shows your thoughts on this I'd love to see it.

@caissad4 said
Why would it be even remotely important what anti-science, anti-evolutionists purport to think ? Scientific history shows that your hypothetical premise of every transitional fossil creating more "missing links" is not realistic. It sounds like that old math problem , "If you have a penny and double it every day etc, etc".
Evolution is science, religion is an substantiated belief.

Okay. I'll chock it up to irony and humor being outside your frame of reference.