New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[DittoJed2]

Where do you observe this macroevolution in the fossil record?

[DittoJed2]

And He isn't limited to communicating to you the way you demand. He is God, you know, and you are not.

[PatrickHenry]

Where do you observe this macroevolution in the fossil record?

Essentially, the fossil record is evidence of macroevolution. Some examples:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
Human Ancestors
Comparison of all skulls
Tree of Life Project

[PatrickHenry]

Besides, I specifically asked what mechanism could possibly prevent a million generations of mirco-evolution from resulting in macro-evolution.

[DittoJed2]

Noah didn't have to have the beetles. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp

[DittoJed2]

You are assuming the millions of years exist. I am not. There is a mechanism in and of itself.

[DittoJed2]

And you can make all of these assumptions without even having read their paper. What if their work rebuts what you just posted? You don't know that it doesn't and apparently your demolition of the argument has not stopped them from pursuing it (they may not have read your specific case, but I am sure that they have read their critics), putting it to the test of peer review, and achieving results. Again, another example of the fact that if it comes from the creationist side, it is IMMEDIATELY discounted.

[Right Wing Professor]

From the link you quote Noah did not need to take sea creatures because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood.

Ever try to put a salt-water fish into freshwater? Don't, it's very cruel. If the flood were 20,000 feet deep, then ocean fish would have to come up, through the freshwater, and die from osmotic shock; or remain below and be crushed by the pressure.

[BMCDA]

I have a feeling we're once again seeing a genuine(?) misunderstanding of what evolution says about how the changes happen.

Indeed :(

[DittoJed2]

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. Assuming that the conditions in the sea were as you say, assuming that micro-evolution doesn't explain these things, assuming immediately that the Bible is wrong and science is write. Well, you know what they say...

[DittoJed2]

Sheesh, will you all stop posting links with hundreds of other links from the "objective" talk.origins site to explain what you are talking about? That website starts with the agenda of Darwinism, claims objectivity by posting the opinions of some creationists, but clearly has a strong non-objective bias concerning the evidence. http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp

[AndrewC]

BRAVO!

[Right Wing Professor]

I read the link AndrewC posted.They're claiming helium diffuses fast in zircons, and therefore the fact there's still helium in zircons means the earth is young. But the problem is that helium does not diffuse fast in zircons; according to the paper I cited, the activation energy for diffusion is 44 kcal/mol. On average, the thermal energy available to a helium atom at room temperature is 0.6 kcal/mol. Below 190C, helium does not diffuse significantly at all.

[DittoJed2]

Okay, in layman's terms, explain to my dimwhitted self exactly how does evolution occur from an evolutionists point of view. Don't give me a ton of links either. We should have a minimum of 5 links rule or something. I have tried to link specifically relevant articles and have often been thrown hundreds of links at a time and then been complained about because I did not answer the post.

[DittoJed2]

What if their paper proves the other paper wrong. You just assumed it does not.

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, neither AiG nor talkorgins are objective websites.

[DittoJed2]

Understood.

[Right Wing Professor]

Assuming that the conditions in the sea were as you say

I assume the flood was freshwater, and that freshwater floats on saltwater. Mixing a volume of freshwater you need to cover the earth to 20,000 feet, with the oceans, would still kill almost all of the ocean fish, and liekly the freshwater fish as well.

micro-evolution doesn't explain these things

Changing a pike to a cod ain't microevolution. And if you can change a lake fish to an ocean fish in 4000 years, why can't you change an ape to a human in 5 million?

[balrog666]

Well, balrog666 just added Menton's name to the list as someone with impecable credentials who is belittled (personally) by the evolution crowd. I revise the post where I say he wasn't attacked. Because he did an experiment with a modern reptile (not the only reason he has for disbelieving scales can become feathers) he is called an "idiot." How nice.

His first response to the question of ancient feathers, dinosaurs, and Archaeopteryx is to look at modern bird feathers and shed snake scales and to conclude that they are not similar.

Well, duh!

This "conclusion" has nothing to with the original question except to provide a scientific sounding excuse to dismiss it out of hand. His statements following that statement have even less to do with anything relevent to the original question. Clearly, as a scientist, his best days are long behind him.

[DittoJed2]

Because it is still a fish. I am not an ape.