[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am not sure what you are asking for because your question is malformed. I will try to answer it anyway.

"Find me just one traditional species in the fossil record."
I am assuming you mean transitional. As I said before, every fossil we find was or had the potential to be a transitional fossil. You seem to think that one day a fish gave birth to a full blown lizard and I am suppose to show you that fossil. That isnt what evolution claims happens. You are asking for something that is nonsensical.

Transitional fossils > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils

Your right on the birth aspect, but your post doesn't imply that, it implies that it is impossible to have another species from a previous species without similarities.

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have already explained that isnt how evolution works nor is it even close. You keep repeating the same crap even though it has been explained a thousand times.

Since you are basically doing nothing but posting long since debunked bullshit from talkorigins then I will resort to posting page after page of long winded quotes too:

"Creationists acknowledge what they call “micro-evolution” (observed changes due to mutation and selection, as with Darwin’s finches) but they insist that what they call “macro-evolution” (the result of cumulative changes over time) is impossible. We sometimes call this the “micro-macro mambo."

If you ask a creationist why “macro” changes are impossible you’ll be told that it’s just impossible — some magic barrier interferes to preserve the integrity of scriptural “kinds.” Because of that unevidenced magical mechanism, which only the magic designer — blessed be he! — can overcome, creationists flatly assert that regardless of time, one species cannot evolve into another — despite the abundant fossil evidence to the contrary. Therefore, creationism requires belief in a two-part dogma consisting of: (1) the Great Barrier; and (2) the miracle that breaks through the barrier.

The error is enormous, because first it involves accepting, at the scale of a few visible generations, both the fact of and the mechanism for evolution (variation and natural selection), and then rejecting the inevitable consequences of what has been accepted.

Being clueless as to how anything might have come to be, the creationist quotes some big number he copied from somewhere to claim that the universe (or a protein molecule, or life, or DNA, or human evolution) coming into existence or happening “by chance” is improbable, therefore … Oogity Boogity! But ignorance isn’t evidence of anything, except the need to get to work trying to figure it out.

The typical “odds” argument is easily rebutted. Here’s how we do it: There are 52 playing cards in a deck. The odds against the sequence resulting from a good shuffle are — as the mathematicians say — 52 factorial. You need to multiply 52 x 51 x 50, etc., and keep going until you get to the last card. That’s what factorial means. Fifty-two factorial is a big number. It works out to be 8.06581752 × 1067. That’s 8 (and a tad more) times 10 to the 67th power, a far larger number than the creationist usually quotes (or makes up) to “prove” that the odds are against evolution. For comparison, 52 factorial is much larger than the estimated number of stars in the universe, which is “only” 1021 (source: this NASA webpage). But there are decks of cards all over the place; and each of them is arranged in an extremely improbable sequence. Further, as we explained three years ago, the algorithm of evolution can easily defeat those odds. See The Inevitability of Evolution (Part III)."

After robot made a comment about a horse eventually become a 4-toed creature of squirrel size, you said that wasn't possible then, now it is to try and save face.

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Every species is transitional. Dogs are wolves with distinct traits they acquired through evolution (change over time). Just as wolves are canids with distinct traits they acquired through evolution. Just as canids are mammals with distinct traits they acquired through evolution. Evolution doesnt claim one day a cow gave birth to a chicken then all cows died off because the chicken was superior but that is exactly what you believe it seems.

Hybrids are when two distinct species are mixed to produce an offspring. That isnt evolution in even the broadest sense. Hybrids can only be made when the two species are closely related in evolutionary terms and the results are exactly what you would expect to see. Two isolated populations of animals use to be the same animal but through years and years of evolution they have changed. They have changed so much from one another they cannot produce non-sterile offspring.

Claimed distinct traits exist, but apparently they don't have to now? More saving face.

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It has been explained about 50 different ways for you but you still dont get it. Small changes over time. Add up those small changes over a long period of time. Congrats...evolution. Nothing magical or mind blowing about it.

Directed at robot for making fun of you. But the small things are still "present" according to you.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

Apparently didn't exist in your previous responses, now does. I also would like to note that you have some weird infatuation with Darwin while completing ignoring quotes from him that reduce a lot of credibility towards his own opinion of evolution. The biggest basically him basically saying no know fucking knows.