abelcainsbrother wrote:No.It comes from doing research on evolution and I do not just make up stuff.I have very legitimate reasons why I reject evolution and much of it is based on honest evolutionists and former evolutionists.
I know this will seem harsh, but perhaps it is inevitable. I don't believe you have done any research on evolution (apart perhaps from a cursory glance at a few Wikipedia articles), nor read the books and papers of any evolutionists. You have quoted no evidence. You have consistently claimed that evolutionary ideas came before the examination of the evidence. You have 'quoted' things from scientists that they did not say. These are not "legitimate" reasons to reject evolution. Bear in mind that I have no quarrel with those who reject evolution without any reasons. I have no quarrel with your rejection of evolution. To each his own. But to pretend evidence when there isn't, or to deny evidence when there is - that's what I will firmly, persistently, unremittingly, but I hope politely, attack with all guns.
Take your discussion about Tiktaalik for example. You begin: "What I mean by transitional fossils are in between one species as it evolves into another species." OK. Pikaia is an example of an 'inbetween' species between an annelid and a fish. Tiktaalik is an example of an 'inbetween' species between a fish and a reptile. Archaeopteryx is an 'inbetween' species between a reptile and a bird. These are great classics of their kinds, but there are countless other 'inbetweens' discovered in the last 200 years. Now you will immediately reply that these animals were all fully formed creatures, and indeed they were. They had no idea of what their offspring would eventually become, nor would we, had we been able to observe them, have been able to guess. they simply fitted their environment sufficiently well to pass on their genes, albeit slightly modified, to their offspring, some of whom chose a slightly different lifestyle, for which their slightly different genetic make-up made them slightly better adapted.
There should've been transitional fossils in between species as they evolved into other species.
There are. Hundreds of examples.
But actually it is evolutionists who make glib assertions that fins evolved into legs and then wings. Oh really? How did that happen? How does that work? How does DNA do that?
If you had in fact read anything at all about evolution, even the Wikipedia article, you would know the answer to these questions.
Take Tiktaalik for example if you read wikipedia it acquired fins/legs with basic wrist bones and simple fingers,showing that they were weight bearing,but probably not used for walking.The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets.suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint.
Tiktaalik did not acquire fins with wrist bones, nor does Wikipedia say that it did. It was born with them. Its mother, grandmother, and even great grandmother also had fins with wrist bones. A million years prior to Tiktaalik, some fish living near the shores of Greenland, whose fins did not have wrist-bones of any kind, occasionally had young with an unusual deformity - their fins were hardened in some places. These young were less active swimmers, found feeding and escaping from predators less easy, and rarely survived to have any offspring of their own. However, some of them found themselves in very shallow water, where their 'normal' friends rarely ventured, and to their delight found that they could manoevre better in these conditions than their normal friends. The abundance of food meant that these creatures prospered, and found mates, and produced some off-spring similar to themselves, some of whom had even stronger hardening of the fins, and could venture into even shallower water. After half a million years, the population of this species of fish had more or less separated into the ones which lived in the shallow waters, and the ones which lived in the deep, the bony fins being unsuited to deep water, and unbony ones unsuited to shallow water. They were varieties of the same species, and occasionally interbred. After another half million years, they were no longer able to interbreed, and we can say that the two populations were now two distinct species. And all this could have come about via a single genetic mutation, exploited by other genes controlling its activation which were there already. As it happens, various other deformities useful to shallow water scavenging were being developed at the same time.
How did those several connected and coordinated finger and wrist bones,with their ability to flex,along with muscles and tendons,ligaments,cartilage,nerves and skin covering arise from fins by accidental DNA copying errors,or cleverly coordinated mutations?
Trying actually doing some of the research you keep claiming you've done, and you'll find out. Begin with
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_04, and then look up some papers on Google Scholar
And if they did where are the zillions of unfit and uncoordinated forms with malformed parts?
They died young, and were eaten by predators.
How did the various tendons take shape and attach themselves to the bones,and at just the right position?
Try research.
Please explain how the accumulation of random DNA copying errors created the specialized array of teeth of a predator fish,upper and lower,and aligned them and attached them to the jaws,and also formed the neck ,and why in this lone survivor?
Start with
http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0226.htm. You won't, will you? Still, I tried.
Notice here the infantile attempt to try to justify these miraculous developments by suggesting that they would give the creature more freedom to hunt prey - a typical Darwinian argument that explains absolutely nothing at all.
Really? Do say why. It explains quite a lot to me.
Most fit? The where are the zillions of un-fit transitional forms,both ancestors and descendants?
The unfit forms are mostly weeded out in youth, and do not survive to breed. That's what 'unfit' means.
