Evolution

Once again sorry it took me so long to respond. I did a lot of extensive research to make sure the information I am presenting is based on the most recent science. Response to PartialHomoeothermic Reptiles Your statement about reptiles having partial control over their body temperature is correct. It cannot be said that they are partially homoeothermic because according to http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... homoeothermy is ““the maintenance of a constant body temperature despite changes in the environmental temperature.”(emphasis added) Reptiles can partially control their body temperature by basking in the sun or by using other methods involving the external environment. A good example is a common lizard. They can bask in the sun to warm themselves up, but that doesn’t mean they will survive a blizzard in Minnesota like most birds and mammals can. The reason is because a homoeothermic animal stays warm through internal processes while reptiles simply don’t. Even if an example was discovered in the future, you would still have to explain how on earth an ectothermic animal miraculously switched its internal systems to become endothermic. On top of that you would have to be able to figure out how the species survived millions or years while using its valuable energies towards an incomplete heating system! Response to Crocodiles Breathing Like Birds I will post my response in the comments due to lack of room. Response to the Archaeopteryx Claim jh1234lnew claims that “many characteristics indicating that it was half dinosaur”. First off he was citing talkorigins.org which is a biased website. I can see that despite the blogs bias, it does present accurate information for its time. If you scroll down to the bottom of that page you will see it was last modified 9 years ago. A lot has been discovered since then. One of the biggest dilemmas for those who want to believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds is that the so-called feathered dinosaurs found thus far are dated to be about 20 million years more recent than Archaeopteryx. This is a problem for evolution because Archaeopteryx is now generally recognized to be a true bird. [8] Some specimens of this bird are so perfectly fossilized that even the microscopic detail of its feathers is clearly visible. So, having alleged missing links of dinosaurs changing into birds when birds already exist doesn’t help the case for evolution. For many years Archaeopteryx has been touted in biology textbooks and museums as the perfect transitional fossil, presumably being precisely intermediate between reptiles and birds. Much has been made over the fact that Archaeopteryx had teeth, fingers on its wings, and a long tail—all supposedly proving its reptilian ancestry. While there are no living birds with teeth, other fossilized birds such as Hesperornis also had teeth. Some modern birds, such as the ostrich, have fingers on their wings, and the juvenile hoatzin (a South American bird) has well-developed fingers and toes with which it can climb trees. Response to My So-called Dropped Arguments I apologize for not responding to your arguments in the earlier round. I just didn’t have enough room, but now I do. “There is a complete set of transitional fossils documenting how the mammalian jaw and ear bone evolved from the reptilian jaw and ear bone.” I am more than willing to get in specifics of the argumen it if it is requested in the comments since getting into detail will take up too much space. Mammal-like reptiles may indeed qualify as the very best examples of transitional evolutionary change that evolutionary theory has to offer from the fossil record. This only shows the barrenness and intellectual poverty of macroevolution. When all of the characters used for the conventional constructions of cladograms are considered, the majority of mammal-like reptile characters do not consistently progress towards the mammalian condition. Instead, within the ‘evolutionary’ chain of mammal-like reptiles, there are many ‘reversals’ away from mammalian characteristics. The use of mammal-like reptiles as an argument for ‘transitional change’ (however one strictly defines it) rests upon special pleading (like everything else in evolutionary theory). So let us permit the evolutionist special pleading and pretend that the large numbers of reversing traits don’t exist, so that the argument can be based solely on the progressive characters. Even this does not let the evolutionist off the hook. To the contrary, the chain of mammal-like reptiles, when examined closely and with attention to many (instead of just a selected few) anatomical characters is full of major discontinuities. And very many of these discontinuities are as large, if not larger, than the ranges of characters which both precede and follow them. Therefore, the oft-repeated evolutionistic claim about mammal-like reptiles showing a series of intermediate stages to the mammalian condition is, at best, an exaggeration. Could not the evolutionists argue that, as more fossils are discovered, the gaps will close? Perhaps. At least they have been trying to do so since the days of Darwin, but with little success, despite a vastly larger known fossil record. Remember that, as shown elsewhere, [9] new fossil finds can just as easily accentuate the gaps as reduce or close them. Consider three new genera that have been described in the 1980s and 1990s: Sinoconodon, Adelobasileus and Haldanodon. As noted earlier, not enough is preserved of Adelobasileus to include it in Tables 1–3. When it comes to Sinoconodon, its existence does narrow the gap in Table 3 that would otherwise exist without it, but not by much in comparison with the gap that remains afterward. Haldanodon, on the other hand, cuts the other way. By virtue of the fact that its characters fall within the range for previously-known primitive mammals, its very discovery actually reinforces the gap between cynodonts and mammals. What if mammal-like reptiles never existed? Would evolutionary theory be crippled? Certainly not. Evolutionary theory is so plastic that any series of observations in the natural world could be cited in its favor! Clearly, the ruling evolutionary paradigm existed before the discovery of mammal-like reptiles, and would have flourished had these reptiles never been discovered. In that event, today’s evolutionists would be extolling some extinct amphibian group as the transitions (or stratomorphic intermediates) leading up to mammals. Cladograms would be constructed to show the close branching pattern between that chosen group of amphibians and mammals.All else would fall in place according to the dictates of evolutionary dogma “The nearly gap-free timeline for human evolution with complete fossils” and “The lack of any morphological gaps between dinosaurs and birds and the completeness of the entire strand of transitional fossils with very few missing links”From what I have observed about you so far jh1234lnew, I am going to assume these statements were made out of ignorance. There are no transitional fossils from ape to man or from dinosaur to bird that are not extremely dubious. I dare you to show me one example of a transitional human/ape fossil that doesn’t fit one of these categories. Combine ape fossil bones with human fossil bones and declare the two to be one individual—a real “apeman.” Emphasize certain humanlike qualities of fossilized ape bones, and with imagination upgrade apes to be more humanlike. Emphasize certain apelike qualities of fossilized human bones, and with imagination downgrade humans to be more apelike. Also the only supposed transitional fossil from dinosaurs to birds is the Archaeopteryx. As I showed earlier the idea that the Archaeopteryx was half dinosaur is ridiculous. Any other so called transitional fossils are dinosaurs that ‘scientists’ assumed had proto feathers because they confused collagen fibers with these nonexistent proto feathers. No scientist who is familiar with the fossil record truly thinks that there is a “gap free timeline” of any evolution unless there are a victim of cognitive dissonance. (If you take on my dare I will respond in the comments because after this round I will not be able to reply to it because the 5th round is for a conclusion only.) “The fact that evolutionists were skeptical of Nebraska man” This is true they were skeptical of Nebraska Man. Piltdown Man would have been a better example. Response to Added Genetic Information Claim The example of the Antarctic Notothenioids is not a case of genetic information being added. It was difficult to get information on this research because it is fairly new and the scientific community hasn’t had the time to add on to this work nor have they had the time to properly state any criticism on the topic. Assuming that the article is 100% accurate, the hypothesis of evolution still can’t scientifically explain how all the genetic information that is needed to make a human was added over millions of years of evolution. Even if some genes can find new purposes that is not adding information. That is merely adjusting information that is already there. For example if you took an original word ‘macroevolution’ and rearranged it to ‘revolution camo’ you would have new meaning, but it wouldn’t become the complete works of Shakespeare over millions of years! 1, 3, and 4 are self-explanatory: information lost or rearranged through mutations. Response to ‘Watertight’ Missing Links will put in comments. Side Notes -You still haven’t told me which evolved first the heart to pump the blood, or the blood for the heart to pump. Sources will put in the comments