Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution and YEC humor

Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 12:52:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am not YEC but I get their point and find their humor hilarious. I love it when Kirk Cameron wipes out a picture of a transitional animal a 'crocoduck' or a bullfrog. It is spot on reductio.

It is clear reductio to the link below:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Evolutionary Biologists can't claim transitional fossils like this without getting laughed at.
Giant Rat, to a whale to another whale.. transitional fossil! All of this because the position of the snout. Notice how disingenous this website is too. They never show the actual images of the creatures.

Giant Rat to a baleen whale to another baleen whale. All because of a cosmetic similarity.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 1:22:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Have you ever seen those computer animations of evolution? I remember watching a few of those and thinking "Huh, yeah, I guess I can see this happening after all", but then I remembered that if I take computer animations as evidence of something being possible, I should also take this video seriously.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 1:33:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 1:22:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Have you ever seen those computer animations of evolution? I remember watching a few of those and thinking "Huh, yeah, I guess I can see this happening after all", but then I remembered that if I take computer animations as evidence of something being possible, I should also take this video seriously.

Ha.
Spot on. I burst out laughing amidst the whole video of the 'one off' cow on the back of another cow.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 1:34:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 1:22:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Have you ever seen those computer animations of evolution? I remember watching a few of those and thinking "Huh, yeah, I guess I can see this happening after all", but then I remembered that if I take computer animations as evidence of something being possible, I should also take this video seriously.

Because, you know, such videos were just created based on nothing at all.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 2:01:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 1:34:03 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/17/2012 1:22:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Have you ever seen those computer animations of evolution? I remember watching a few of those and thinking "Huh, yeah, I guess I can see this happening after all", but then I remembered that if I take computer animations as evidence of something being possible, I should also take this video seriously.

Because, you know, such videos were just created based on nothing at all.

No seriously... one time... when I went cow tipping... no joke.... they did this!!!!! This video is completely based in reality!!!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 2:12:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 12:52:07 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I am not YEC but I get their point and find their humor hilarious. I love it when Kirk Cameron wipes out a picture of a transitional animal a 'crocoduck' or a bullfrog. It is spot on reductio.

It is clear reductio to the link below:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Evolutionary Biologists can't claim transitional fossils like this without getting laughed at.
Giant Rat, to a whale to another whale.. transitional fossil! All of this because the position of the snout. Notice how disingenous this website is too. They never show the actual images of the creatures.

Giant Rat to a baleen whale to another baleen whale. All because of a cosmetic similarity.

You do realize that there are means of telling the difference between homologous and analogous anatomical structures, right?

Or does that not get covered in "Banana's Are Atheist's Worst Nightmares" 101?
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 2:30:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 1:34:03 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/17/2012 1:22:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Have you ever seen those computer animations of evolution? I remember watching a few of those and thinking "Huh, yeah, I guess I can see this happening after all", but then I remembered that if I take computer animations as evidence of something being possible, I should also take this video seriously.

Because, you know, such videos were just created based on nothing at all.

Oh no, we all know that such videos are based the clear homologous transitions of nostril positioning between giant rats and grey whales. Yup, I'm convinced.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 2:30:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 2:12:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:52:07 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I am not YEC but I get their point and find their humor hilarious. I love it when Kirk Cameron wipes out a picture of a transitional animal a 'crocoduck' or a bullfrog. It is spot on reductio.

It is clear reductio to the link below:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Evolutionary Biologists can't claim transitional fossils like this without getting laughed at.
Giant Rat, to a whale to another whale.. transitional fossil! All of this because the position of the snout. Notice how disingenous this website is too. They never show the actual images of the creatures.

Giant Rat to a baleen whale to another baleen whale. All because of a cosmetic similarity.

You do realize that there are means of telling the difference between homologous and analogous anatomical structures, right?

Again I am not YEC.
Everything I stated stands.


Or does that not get covered in "Banana's Are Atheist's Worst Nightmares" 101?
This is not reductio, this is a strawman lol. Big difference.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 4:14:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 2:30:20 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/17/2012 2:12:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:52:07 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I am not YEC but I get their point and find their humor hilarious. I love it when Kirk Cameron wipes out a picture of a transitional animal a 'crocoduck' or a bullfrog. It is spot on reductio.

It is clear reductio to the link below:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Evolutionary Biologists can't claim transitional fossils like this without getting laughed at.
Giant Rat, to a whale to another whale.. transitional fossil! All of this because the position of the snout. Notice how disingenous this website is too. They never show the actual images of the creatures.

Giant Rat to a baleen whale to another baleen whale. All because of a cosmetic similarity.

You do realize that there are means of telling the difference between homologous and analogous anatomical structures, right?

Again I am not YEC.
Everything I stated stands.


Or does that not get covered in "Banana's Are Atheist's Worst Nightmares" 101?
This is not reductio, this is a strawman lol. Big difference.

No, none of it stands.

Its like saying that an African american and a caucasian person have never had a child, because none of the children have striped black-white patterns like a Zebra or a Panda.

This is the stupidity of the argument being made. In reality, we have transitional fossils, like the Archeopteryx, which shares clear characteristics from both birds and reptiles.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 5:12:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 4:14:41 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/17/2012 2:30:20 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/17/2012 2:12:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:52:07 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I am not YEC but I get their point and find their humor hilarious. I love it when Kirk Cameron wipes out a picture of a transitional animal a 'crocoduck' or a bullfrog. It is spot on reductio.

It is clear reductio to the link below:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Evolutionary Biologists can't claim transitional fossils like this without getting laughed at.
Giant Rat, to a whale to another whale.. transitional fossil! All of this because the position of the snout. Notice how disingenous this website is too. They never show the actual images of the creatures.

Giant Rat to a baleen whale to another baleen whale. All because of a cosmetic similarity.

You do realize that there are means of telling the difference between homologous and analogous anatomical structures, right?

Again I am not YEC.
Everything I stated stands.


Or does that not get covered in "Banana's Are Atheist's Worst Nightmares" 101?
This is not reductio, this is a strawman lol. Big difference.

No, none of it stands.

Its like saying that an African american and a caucasian person have never had a child, because none of the children have striped black-white patterns like a Zebra or a Panda.

tkubok, no one knows what you're talking about. I don't even see how your analogy is even slightly relevant to anything said in this thread.

This is the stupidity of the argument being made.

Well that clears things up.

In reality, we have transitional fossils, like the Archeopteryx, which shares clear characteristics from both birds and reptiles.

You're right, and Pakicetus and Grey Whales also share clear characteristics, like nostrils. So... Yeah. Evolution, man. Anyone who denies it is a moron.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 5:44:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 5:12:12 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/17/2012 4:14:41 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/17/2012 2:30:20 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/17/2012 2:12:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:52:07 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I am not YEC but I get their point and find their humor hilarious. I love it when Kirk Cameron wipes out a picture of a transitional animal a 'crocoduck' or a bullfrog. It is spot on reductio.

It is clear reductio to the link below:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Evolutionary Biologists can't claim transitional fossils like this without getting laughed at.
Giant Rat, to a whale to another whale.. transitional fossil! All of this because the position of the snout. Notice how disingenous this website is too. They never show the actual images of the creatures.

Giant Rat to a baleen whale to another baleen whale. All because of a cosmetic similarity.

You do realize that there are means of telling the difference between homologous and analogous anatomical structures, right?

Again I am not YEC.
Everything I stated stands.


Or does that not get covered in "Banana's Are Atheist's Worst Nightmares" 101?
This is not reductio, this is a strawman lol. Big difference.

No, none of it stands.

Its like saying that an African american and a caucasian person have never had a child, because none of the children have striped black-white patterns like a Zebra or a Panda.

tkubok, no one knows what you're talking about. I don't even see how your analogy is even slightly relevant to anything said in this thread.
I was reffering to the Crocoduck argument used by Cameron.
This is the stupidity of the argument being made.

Well that clears things up.
Yes, it does.
In reality, we have transitional fossils, like the Archeopteryx, which shares clear characteristics from both birds and reptiles.

You're right, and Pakicetus and Grey Whales also share clear characteristics, like nostrils. So... Yeah. Evolution, man. Anyone who denies it is a moron.

Well, no, by "Shares", im not talking about characteristics present in both reptiles and birds. Im talking about how the Archeopteryx has characteristics that only exist exclusively in birds, and exclusively in reptiles. Im talking about characteristics that birds have, that reptiles do not, and vice versa.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 5:53:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I don't think that it is rational to deny evolution as a best understanding of the history of life on earth. You dont' need all the Fossls, we are lucky to have any at all. You just need to date them and find a general connection. There is mount of evidence of connection. You can't possibly deny that and then trust the science that says the world had a beginnig in the very same mind. The evidence for evolution is way more stronger. Then weak and inconsistent abstract notions and surmounting unjustified assumption used in the bigbang
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 6:34:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 5:44:24 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/17/2012 5:12:12 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/17/2012 4:14:41 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/17/2012 2:30:20 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/17/2012 2:12:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:52:07 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I am not YEC but I get their point and find their humor hilarious. I love it when Kirk Cameron wipes out a picture of a transitional animal a 'crocoduck' or a bullfrog. It is spot on reductio.

It is clear reductio to the link below:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Evolutionary Biologists can't claim transitional fossils like this without getting laughed at.
Giant Rat, to a whale to another whale.. transitional fossil! All of this because the position of the snout. Notice how disingenous this website is too. They never show the actual images of the creatures.

Giant Rat to a baleen whale to another baleen whale. All because of a cosmetic similarity.

You do realize that there are means of telling the difference between homologous and analogous anatomical structures, right?

Again I am not YEC.
Everything I stated stands.


Or does that not get covered in "Banana's Are Atheist's Worst Nightmares" 101?
This is not reductio, this is a strawman lol. Big difference.

No, none of it stands.

Its like saying that an African american and a caucasian person have never had a child, because none of the children have striped black-white patterns like a Zebra or a Panda.

tkubok, no one knows what you're talking about. I don't even see how your analogy is even slightly relevant to anything said in this thread.
I was reffering to the Crocoduck argument used by Cameron.

Still don't see how it's relevant. You don't see striped patterns in white or black people.

This is the stupidity of the argument being made.

Well that clears things up.
Yes, it does.

No. Not really.

In reality, we have transitional fossils, like the Archeopteryx, which shares clear characteristics from both birds and reptiles.

You're right, and Pakicetus and Grey Whales also share clear characteristics, like nostrils. So... Yeah. Evolution, man. Anyone who denies it is a moron.

Well, no, by "Shares", im not talking about characteristics present in both reptiles and birds. Im talking about how the Archeopteryx has characteristics that only exist exclusively in birds, and exclusively in reptiles. Im talking about characteristics that birds have, that reptiles do not, and vice versa.

I think you're missing the point. The fact that Archeopteryx shares characteristics with another animal of any kind isn't strong evidence for evolution, as shown by this example. Appearances can be deceiving. If we look at computer animation we can see how a cow could grow legs and turn into a spider, but by then we're using our imagination to a point that extends beyond valid evidence.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 7:19:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 6:34:24 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/17/2012 5:44:24 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/17/2012 5:12:12 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/17/2012 4:14:41 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/17/2012 2:30:20 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/17/2012 2:12:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:52:07 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I am not YEC but I get their point and find their humor hilarious. I love it when Kirk Cameron wipes out a picture of a transitional animal a 'crocoduck' or a bullfrog. It is spot on reductio.

It is clear reductio to the link below:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Evolutionary Biologists can't claim transitional fossils like this without getting laughed at.
Giant Rat, to a whale to another whale.. transitional fossil! All of this because the position of the snout. Notice how disingenous this website is too. They never show the actual images of the creatures.

Giant Rat to a baleen whale to another baleen whale. All because of a cosmetic similarity.

You do realize that there are means of telling the difference between homologous and analogous anatomical structures, right?

Again I am not YEC.
Everything I stated stands.


Or does that not get covered in "Banana's Are Atheist's Worst Nightmares" 101?
This is not reductio, this is a strawman lol. Big difference.

No, none of it stands.

Its like saying that an African american and a caucasian person have never had a child, because none of the children have striped black-white patterns like a Zebra or a Panda.

tkubok, no one knows what you're talking about. I don't even see how your analogy is even slightly relevant to anything said in this thread.
I was reffering to the Crocoduck argument used by Cameron.

Still don't see how it's relevant. You don't see striped patterns in white or black people.
Exactly. And for the same reason, you will not see a crocoduck. Because thats not how biology works. To bring up the crocoduck, asking why we havent seen this, is the same as bringing up a photoshoped picture of a striped black and white baby, asking "if interracial couples can really reproduce, why dont we see a baby like this?"
This is the stupidity of the argument being made.

Well that clears things up.
Yes, it does.

No. Not really.
See above.
In reality, we have transitional fossils, like the Archeopteryx, which shares clear characteristics from both birds and reptiles.

You're right, and Pakicetus and Grey Whales also share clear characteristics, like nostrils. So... Yeah. Evolution, man. Anyone who denies it is a moron.

Well, no, by "Shares", im not talking about characteristics present in both reptiles and birds. Im talking about how the Archeopteryx has characteristics that only exist exclusively in birds, and exclusively in reptiles. Im talking about characteristics that birds have, that reptiles do not, and vice versa.

I think you're missing the point. The fact that Archeopteryx shares characteristics with another animal of any kind isn't strong evidence for evolution, as shown by this example. Appearances can be deceiving. If we look at computer animation we can see how a cow could grow legs and turn into a spider, but by then we're using our imagination to a point that extends beyond valid evidence.

First off, what "Example". You are aware of the difference between Transitional fossils and homologous structures, right.

Secondly, the problem with your argument is that cows dont have the necessary appendages to be linked to spiders. Its not about changing things that do not exist, its about looking at things that already exist. Things that exist require no imagination to make a valid deductive conclusion. Things that do not exist, does require imagination.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 10:46:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 7:19:27 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/17/2012 6:34:24 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/17/2012 5:44:24 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/17/2012 5:12:12 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/17/2012 4:14:41 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/17/2012 2:30:20 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/17/2012 2:12:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:52:07 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I am not YEC but I get their point and find their humor hilarious. I love it when Kirk Cameron wipes out a picture of a transitional animal a 'crocoduck' or a bullfrog. It is spot on reductio.

It is clear reductio to the link below:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Evolutionary Biologists can't claim transitional fossils like this without getting laughed at.
Giant Rat, to a whale to another whale.. transitional fossil! All of this because the position of the snout. Notice how disingenous this website is too. They never show the actual images of the creatures.

Giant Rat to a baleen whale to another baleen whale. All because of a cosmetic similarity.

You do realize that there are means of telling the difference between homologous and analogous anatomical structures, right?

Again I am not YEC.
Everything I stated stands.


Or does that not get covered in "Banana's Are Atheist's Worst Nightmares" 101?
This is not reductio, this is a strawman lol. Big difference.

No, none of it stands.

Its like saying that an African american and a caucasian person have never had a child, because none of the children have striped black-white patterns like a Zebra or a Panda.

tkubok, no one knows what you're talking about. I don't even see how your analogy is even slightly relevant to anything said in this thread.
I was reffering to the Crocoduck argument used by Cameron.

Still don't see how it's relevant. You don't see striped patterns in white or black people.
Exactly. And for the same reason, you will not see a crocoduck. Because thats not how biology works. To bring up the crocoduck, asking why we havent seen this, is the same as bringing up a photoshoped picture of a striped black and white baby, asking "if interracial couples can really reproduce, why dont we see a baby like this?"

So transitional species like the Archeopteryx shouldn't exist, because that's not how biology works? ;)

In reality, we have transitional fossils, like the Archeopteryx, which shares clear characteristics from both birds and reptiles.

You're right, and Pakicetus and Grey Whales also share clear characteristics, like nostrils. So... Yeah. Evolution, man. Anyone who denies it is a moron.

Well, no, by "Shares", im not talking about characteristics present in both reptiles and birds. Im talking about how the Archeopteryx has characteristics that only exist exclusively in birds, and exclusively in reptiles. Im talking about characteristics that birds have, that reptiles do not, and vice versa.

I think you're missing the point. The fact that Archeopteryx shares characteristics with another animal of any kind isn't strong evidence for evolution, as shown by this example. Appearances can be deceiving. If we look at computer animation we can see how a cow could grow legs and turn into a spider, but by then we're using our imagination to a point that extends beyond valid evidence.

First off, what "Example". You are aware of the difference between Transitional fossils and homologous structures, right.

The example in the OP, bro. Actually, I've never discerned such a difference, so, make your case.

Secondly, the problem with your argument is that cows dont have the necessary appendages to be linked to spiders. Its not about changing things that do not exist, its about looking at things that already exist. Things that exist require no imagination to make a valid deductive conclusion. Things that do not exist, does require imagination.

Huh? Single-celled organisms don't have the necessary appendages to be linked to apes, but "technically" we evolved from them. So... Now what?
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 5:09:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 10:46:57 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/17/2012 7:19:27 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/17/2012 6:34:24 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/17/2012 5:44:24 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/17/2012 5:12:12 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/17/2012 4:14:41 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/17/2012 2:30:20 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/17/2012 2:12:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:52:07 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I am not YEC but I get their point and find their humor hilarious. I love it when Kirk Cameron wipes out a picture of a transitional animal a 'crocoduck' or a bullfrog. It is spot on reductio.

It is clear reductio to the link below:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Evolutionary Biologists can't claim transitional fossils like this without getting laughed at.
Giant Rat, to a whale to another whale.. transitional fossil! All of this because the position of the snout. Notice how disingenous this website is too. They never show the actual images of the creatures.

Giant Rat to a baleen whale to another baleen whale. All because of a cosmetic similarity.

You do realize that there are means of telling the difference between homologous and analogous anatomical structures, right?

Again I am not YEC.
Everything I stated stands.


Or does that not get covered in "Banana's Are Atheist's Worst Nightmares" 101?
This is not reductio, this is a strawman lol. Big difference.

No, none of it stands.

Its like saying that an African american and a caucasian person have never had a child, because none of the children have striped black-white patterns like a Zebra or a Panda.

tkubok, no one knows what you're talking about. I don't even see how your analogy is even slightly relevant to anything said in this thread.
I was reffering to the Crocoduck argument used by Cameron.

Still don't see how it's relevant. You don't see striped patterns in white or black people.
Exactly. And for the same reason, you will not see a crocoduck. Because thats not how biology works. To bring up the crocoduck, asking why we havent seen this, is the same as bringing up a photoshoped picture of a striped black and white baby, asking "if interracial couples can really reproduce, why dont we see a baby like this?"

So transitional species like the Archeopteryx shouldn't exist, because that's not how biology works? ;)
No, Transitional species like the crocoduck shouldnt exist, because thats not how biology works. Biology doesnt work by having a clear-cut separation of two distinct species formed into one, i.e. the upper half of a crocodile and the lower half of a duck. Its always a mixture, a blend, much like how a caucasian and an african american child will have a blended, lighter skin colour.
In reality, we have transitional fossils, like the Archeopteryx, which shares clear characteristics from both birds and reptiles.

You're right, and Pakicetus and Grey Whales also share clear characteristics, like nostrils. So... Yeah. Evolution, man. Anyone who denies it is a moron.

Well, no, by "Shares", im not talking about characteristics present in both reptiles and birds. Im talking about how the Archeopteryx has characteristics that only exist exclusively in birds, and exclusively in reptiles. Im talking about characteristics that birds have, that reptiles do not, and vice versa.

I think you're missing the point. The fact that Archeopteryx shares characteristics with another animal of any kind isn't strong evidence for evolution, as shown by this example. Appearances can be deceiving. If we look at computer animation we can see how a cow could grow legs and turn into a spider, but by then we're using our imagination to a point that extends beyond valid evidence.

First off, what "Example". You are aware of the difference between Transitional fossils and homologous structures, right.

The example in the OP, bro. Actually, I've never discerned such a difference, so, make your case.

Make my case.... regarding the difference between Transitional fossils and homologous structures?

Secondly, the problem with your argument is that cows dont have the necessary appendages to be linked to spiders. Its not about changing things that do not exist, its about looking at things that already exist. Things that exist require no imagination to make a valid deductive conclusion. Things that do not exist, does require imagination.

Huh? Single-celled organisms don't have the necessary appendages to be linked to apes, but "technically" we evolved from them. So... Now what?

What do you mean by "Now what". No scientist is using a single transitional fossil to represent the linkage between single celled organisms and humans.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 3:23:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/18/2012 5:09:01 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/17/2012 10:46:57 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/17/2012 7:19:27 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/17/2012 6:34:24 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/17/2012 5:44:24 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/17/2012 5:12:12 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/17/2012 4:14:41 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/17/2012 2:30:20 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/17/2012 2:12:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:52:07 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I am not YEC but I get their point and find their humor hilarious. I love it when Kirk Cameron wipes out a picture of a transitional animal a 'crocoduck' or a bullfrog. It is spot on reductio.

It is clear reductio to the link below:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Evolutionary Biologists can't claim transitional fossils like this without getting laughed at.
Giant Rat, to a whale to another whale.. transitional fossil! All of this because the position of the snout. Notice how disingenous this website is too. They never show the actual images of the creatures.

Giant Rat to a baleen whale to another baleen whale. All because of a cosmetic similarity.

You do realize that there are means of telling the difference between homologous and analogous anatomical structures, right?

Again I am not YEC.
Everything I stated stands.


Or does that not get covered in "Banana's Are Atheist's Worst Nightmares" 101?
This is not reductio, this is a strawman lol. Big difference.

No, none of it stands.

Its like saying that an African american and a caucasian person have never had a child, because none of the children have striped black-white patterns like a Zebra or a Panda.

tkubok, no one knows what you're talking about. I don't even see how your analogy is even slightly relevant to anything said in this thread.
I was reffering to the Crocoduck argument used by Cameron.

Still don't see how it's relevant. You don't see striped patterns in white or black people.
Exactly. And for the same reason, you will not see a crocoduck. Because thats not how biology works. To bring up the crocoduck, asking why we havent seen this, is the same as bringing up a photoshoped picture of a striped black and white baby, asking "if interracial couples can really reproduce, why dont we see a baby like this?"

So transitional species like the Archeopteryx shouldn't exist, because that's not how biology works? ;)
No, Transitional species like the crocoduck shouldnt exist, because thats not how biology works. Biology doesnt work by having a clear-cut separation of two distinct species formed into one, i.e. the upper half of a crocodile and the lower half of a duck. Its always a mixture, a blend, much like how a caucasian and an african american child will have a blended, lighter skin colour.

Yet you would still see expect to see characteristics of both in one animal. Like you said, a blend.

In reality, we have transitional fossils, like the Archeopteryx, which shares clear characteristics from both birds and reptiles.

You're right, and Pakicetus and Grey Whales also share clear characteristics, like nostrils. So... Yeah. Evolution, man. Anyone who denies it is a moron.

Well, no, by "Shares", im not talking about characteristics present in both reptiles and birds. Im talking about how the Archeopteryx has characteristics that only exist exclusively in birds, and exclusively in reptiles. Im talking about characteristics that birds have, that reptiles do not, and vice versa.

I think you're missing the point. The fact that Archeopteryx shares characteristics with another animal of any kind isn't strong evidence for evolution, as shown by this example. Appearances can be deceiving. If we look at computer animation we can see how a cow could grow legs and turn into a spider, but by then we're using our imagination to a point that extends beyond valid evidence.

First off, what "Example". You are aware of the difference between Transitional fossils and homologous structures, right.

The example in the OP, bro. Actually, I've never discerned such a difference, so, make your case.

Make my case.... regarding the difference between Transitional fossils and homologous structures?

Yes.

Secondly, the problem with your argument is that cows dont have the necessary appendages to be linked to spiders. Its not about changing things that do not exist, its about looking at things that already exist. Things that exist require no imagination to make a valid deductive conclusion. Things that do not exist, does require imagination.

Huh? Single-celled organisms don't have the necessary appendages to be linked to apes, but "technically" we evolved from them. So... Now what?

What do you mean by "Now what". No scientist is using a single transitional fossil to represent the linkage between single celled organisms and humans.

Sure. That's fine. But in that case there could be multiple transitions between a cow and a spider. So technically a cow did morph into a spider, or visa versa. You arguing "cows don't have the necessary appendages to be linked to spiders" contradicts the essence of evolution. Cows are linked to spiders, but by many links, according to evolution.

I do like your comment "Its not about changing things that do not exist, its about looking at things that already exist". In a sense, I agree with this statement. Single-celled organisms lack the structural complexity of spiders, and spiders lack the structural complexity of cows. Perhaps we could change and alter the structural complexity of a spider, sure. But from there you can only go down structurally, if that makes sense.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 3:35:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 3:23:31 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Perhaps we could change and alter the structural complexity of a spider, sure. But from there you can only go down structurally, if that makes sense.


Second Law of Thermodynamics, right?

It eventually can only come down to that; Entropy.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 3:41:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 12:52:07 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I am not YEC but I get their point and find their humor hilarious. I love it when Kirk Cameron wipes out a picture of a transitional animal a 'crocoduck' or a bullfrog. It is spot on reductio.

It is clear reductio to the link below:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Evolutionary Biologists can't claim transitional fossils like this without getting laughed at.
Giant Rat, to a whale to another whale.. transitional fossil! All of this because the position of the snout. Notice how disingenous this website is too. They never show the actual images of the creatures.

Giant Rat to a baleen whale to another baleen whale. All because of a cosmetic similarity.

Why don't you explain to me why baleen (toothless) whales have tooth bugs that are degenerated later on in embryonic development?
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 1:45:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 3:41:04 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:52:07 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I am not YEC but I get their point and find their humor hilarious. I love it when Kirk Cameron wipes out a picture of a transitional animal a 'crocoduck' or a bullfrog. It is spot on reductio.

It is clear reductio to the link below:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Evolutionary Biologists can't claim transitional fossils like this without getting laughed at.
Giant Rat, to a whale to another whale.. transitional fossil! All of this because the position of the snout. Notice how disingenous this website is too. They never show the actual images of the creatures.

Giant Rat to a baleen whale to another baleen whale. All because of a cosmetic similarity.

Why don't you explain to me why baleen (toothless) whales have tooth bugs that are degenerated later on in embryonic development?

Often such appendages are necessary for that particular stage of embryonic development. I haven't looked it up or anything, but that's my guess.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 1:46:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 3:35:36 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/21/2012 3:23:31 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Perhaps we could change and alter the structural complexity of a spider, sure. But from there you can only go down structurally, if that makes sense.


Second Law of Thermodynamics, right?

It eventually can only come down to that; Entropy.

Pretty much! You can't build a skyscraper by taking away bricks from a brick house. You can make that brick house smaller, or more spacious, but it's never going to get bigger.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 2:16:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 1:46:37 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/21/2012 3:35:36 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/21/2012 3:23:31 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Perhaps we could change and alter the structural complexity of a spider, sure. But from there you can only go down structurally, if that makes sense.


Second Law of Thermodynamics, right?

It eventually can only come down to that; Entropy.

Pretty much! You can't build a skyscraper by taking away bricks from a brick house. You can make that brick house smaller, or more spacious, but it's never going to get bigger.

The Fool: But that law is a fail.. because life becomes more complicated. That is life is the refutation of that principle. So the law of entropy is False. Because we create more complicated things, so do beaver with dames. Science Can't really give LAWS. because the information is inductive they just call them laws. after they havent noticed a contradiction in a looooong time. But its logically impossble. In the manner of the physicalism. based scientic method we have now. (its fading away slowly thought, because philosophy of mind puts a huge whole in it.)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 2:22:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 2:16:16 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/22/2012 1:46:37 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/21/2012 3:35:36 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/21/2012 3:23:31 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Perhaps we could change and alter the structural complexity of a spider, sure. But from there you can only go down structurally, if that makes sense.


Second Law of Thermodynamics, right?

It eventually can only come down to that; Entropy.

Pretty much! You can't build a skyscraper by taking away bricks from a brick house. You can make that brick house smaller, or more spacious, but it's never going to get bigger.

The Fool: But that law is a fail.. because life becomes more complicated. That is life is the refutation of that principle. So the law of entropy is False. Because we create more complicated things, so do beaver with dames. Science Can't really give LAWS. because the information is inductive they just call them laws. after they havent noticed a contradiction in a looooong time. But its logically impossble. In the manner of the physicalism. based scientic method we have now. (its fading away slowly thought, because philosophy of mind puts a huge whole in it.)

Non the less appeal to humour is a logical fallacy. Evolution is defintly a historical account of life. You don't have to have all the transitional fossils. The ones we have are by ridiculous odds alread because only certain types of earth that at particuar periods can fossilize. It just mean that the principle of parsimy is exercised. If a miricle is the impossible or near impossibe, then any other explanation is more likley is BETTER!. (Hume)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 2:24:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 2:16:16 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/22/2012 1:46:37 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/21/2012 3:35:36 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/21/2012 3:23:31 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Perhaps we could change and alter the structural complexity of a spider, sure. But from there you can only go down structurally, if that makes sense.


Second Law of Thermodynamics, right?

It eventually can only come down to that; Entropy.

Pretty much! You can't build a skyscraper by taking away bricks from a brick house. You can make that brick house smaller, or more spacious, but it's never going to get bigger.

The Fool: But that law is a fail.. because life becomes more complicated. That is life is the refutation of that principle. So the law of entropy is False. Because we create more complicated things, so do beaver with dames. Science Can't really give LAWS. because the information is inductive they just call them laws. after they havent noticed a contradiction in a looooong time. But its logically impossble. In the manner of the physicalism. based scientic method we have now. (its fading away slowly thought, because philosophy of mind puts a huge whole in it.)

Entropy is false because we can create complicated things from less complicated things?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 2:30:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 2:22:51 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/22/2012 2:16:16 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/22/2012 1:46:37 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/21/2012 3:35:36 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/21/2012 3:23:31 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Perhaps we could change and alter the structural complexity of a spider, sure. But from there you can only go down structurally, if that makes sense.


Second Law of Thermodynamics, right?

It eventually can only come down to that; Entropy.

Pretty much! You can't build a skyscraper by taking away bricks from a brick house. You can make that brick house smaller, or more spacious, but it's never going to get bigger.

The Fool: But that law is a fail.. because life becomes more complicated. That is life is the refutation of that principle. So the law of entropy is False. Because we create more complicated things, so do beaver with dames. Science Can't really give LAWS. because the information is inductive they just call them laws. after they havent noticed a contradiction in a looooong time. But its logically impossble. In the manner of the physicalism. based scientic method we have now. (its fading away slowly thought, because philosophy of mind puts a huge whole in it.)

Non the less appeal to humour is a logical fallacy. Evolution is defintly a historical account of life. You don't have to have all the transitional fossils. The ones we have are by ridiculous odds alread because only certain types of earth that at particuar periods can fossilize. It just mean that the principle of parsimy is exercised.

If a miricle is the impossible, then any other explanation is more likley to be true and is therefore BETTER!. (Hume)

1. Can anyone defend against this argument?

2. Can you argue against evolution being the best evidence for the history of life?

3. If so? Bring it on! IF not R.I.P. Creationalism.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 2:34:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 2:30:49 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/22/2012 2:22:51 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/22/2012 2:16:16 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/22/2012 1:46:37 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/21/2012 3:35:36 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/21/2012 3:23:31 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Perhaps we could change and alter the structural complexity of a spider, sure. But from there you can only go down structurally, if that makes sense.


Second Law of Thermodynamics, right?

It eventually can only come down to that; Entropy.

Pretty much! You can't build a skyscraper by taking away bricks from a brick house. You can make that brick house smaller, or more spacious, but it's never going to get bigger.

The Fool: But that law is a fail.. because life becomes more complicated. That is life is the refutation of that principle. So the law of entropy is False. Because we create more complicated things, so do beaver with dames. (adaptation, is a change. we know for sure earlier creatures were more simple then Humans. )Science Can't really give LAWS. because the information is inductive they just call them laws. after they havent noticed a contradiction in a looooong time. But its logically impossble. In the manner of the physicalism. based scientic method we have now. (its fading away slowly thought, because philosophy of mind puts a huge whole in it.)

Non the less appeal to humour is a logical fallacy. Evolution is defintly a historical account of life. You don't have to have all the transitional fossils. The ones we have are by ridiculous odds alread because only certain types of earth that at particuar periods can fossilize. It just mean that the principle of parsimy is exercised.

If a miricle is the impossible, then any other explanation is more likley to be true and is therefore BETTER!. (Hume)

1. Can anyone defend against this argument?

2. Can you argue against evolution being the best evidence for the history of life?

3. If so? Bring it on! IF not R.I.P. Creationalism.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 2:34:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 1:45:16 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/21/2012 3:41:04 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:52:07 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I am not YEC but I get their point and find their humor hilarious. I love it when Kirk Cameron wipes out a picture of a transitional animal a 'crocoduck' or a bullfrog. It is spot on reductio.

It is clear reductio to the link below:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Evolutionary Biologists can't claim transitional fossils like this without getting laughed at.
Giant Rat, to a whale to another whale.. transitional fossil! All of this because the position of the snout. Notice how disingenous this website is too. They never show the actual images of the creatures.

Giant Rat to a baleen whale to another baleen whale. All because of a cosmetic similarity.

Why don't you explain to me why baleen (toothless) whales have tooth bugs that are degenerated later on in embryonic development?

Often such appendages are necessary for that particular stage of embryonic development. I haven't looked it up or anything, but that's my guess.

I see. Makes sense. However you have not told me how they are necessary.

Funny how these necessary traits also happen to make the theory of evolution look very good. But I have only given you just one example. Surely that is simply an outlier.

Why do some dolphins have leg buds that are eroded during embryonic development? Why do embryonic humans have long tails?

Why do marsupial fetuses develop the quadrate and articular bones (http://upload.wikimedia.org...) like reptiles that then develop into ear bones like mammals?

Mammalian embryos develop pharyngeal pouches which are morphologically indistinguishable from embryonic gills.

Many snakes develop embryonic legs that are destroyed during embryonic development. Many embryonic whales begin developing body hair that is later destroyed.

We know that embryonic development is where a creature is built. If evolution were to remove a feature, changing the creature's embryonic development so that this feature never appears would have the same effect as allowing the feature to develop a little and then kill it off.

Natural selection does not know the difference as long as the feature is not seen in the newborn.

Because of this we can predict that we should find cases where vestigial traits develop in the embryo and then are later destroyed. We should be able to use this to find hints of modern life's morphological past. In fact this is exactly what we see and the specificity is amazing.

On the other hand, the creationist can only hope without evidence that these anomalies will one day be explained. He can only hope that God made these anomalies almost as if he were trying to provide evidence for evolution.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 3:07:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Edit 1.2
The Death of Creationalism

At 7/21/2012 3:23:31 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Perhaps we could change and alter the structural complexity of a spider, sure. But from there you can only go down structurally, if that makes sense.


Second Law of Thermodynamics, right?

It eventually can only come down to that; Entropy.

Pretty much! You can't build a skyscraper by taking away bricks from a brick house. You can make that brick house smaller, or more spacious, but it's never going to get bigger.

The Fool: But that law is a fail.. because life becomes more complicated. That is life is the refutation of that principle. So the law of entropy is False. Even just the fact that we grow up from a child to a adult, in a physical sense violates the law of Entropy.
He ability for the brain to adapt and allow us to create more complicated things. Is a violation of the principle. Scientist are human and are fallable to the same irrational errors in there reasoning. Must people trust it only because they understand better what they can see with there eyes. But Pure faith in anything is BAD. (we know that more simple creatures exististed here before us. We have pre-human fossels of humanoid creatures with smaller brains, cruder intellegence with DNA which directly relates to us.

Science can't really give LAWS!. Logical Laws are above science. Because we need to know them to be able to even understand that a Laws are substistant in the first place. Sense information is inductive they just call them laws, after they haven't noticed a contradiction in a looooong time. But its logically impossible with the manner of the popular physicalism based scientific method we have now. (Its fading away slowly though, because philosophy of mind puts a huge whole in it.)

Non the less appeal to humour is a logical fallacy. Evolution is definetly a historical account of life. You don't have to have all the transitional fossils, the ones we have are by ridiculous odds already. Because only certain types of earth at particular periods with the creature in the right way in particular area can fossilize. It just means that the principle of parsimony is exercised.

If a miricle is the impossible, then any other explanation is more likley to be true and is therefore BETTER!. (Hume re-masterd by The Fool)

1. Can anyone defend against this argument?

2. Can you argue against evolution being the best evidence for the history of life?

3. If so? Bring it on! IF not R.I.P. Creationalism.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 1:34:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 2:34:54 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 7/22/2012 1:45:16 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 7/21/2012 3:41:04 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:52:07 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I am not YEC but I get their point and find their humor hilarious. I love it when Kirk Cameron wipes out a picture of a transitional animal a 'crocoduck' or a bullfrog. It is spot on reductio.

It is clear reductio to the link below:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Evolutionary Biologists can't claim transitional fossils like this without getting laughed at.
Giant Rat, to a whale to another whale.. transitional fossil! All of this because the position of the snout. Notice how disingenous this website is too. They never show the actual images of the creatures.

Giant Rat to a baleen whale to another baleen whale. All because of a cosmetic similarity.

Why don't you explain to me why baleen (toothless) whales have tooth bugs that are degenerated later on in embryonic development?

Often such appendages are necessary for that particular stage of embryonic development. I haven't looked it up or anything, but that's my guess.

I see. Makes sense. However you have not told me how they are necessary.

I haven't explained it because I actually don't know. I haven't looked it up or anything. I remember similar claims about a particular "leg" bone vestige in whales, and then it was later found that such a "leg" bone was necessary for copulation.

Funny how these necessary traits also happen to make the theory of evolution look very good. But I have only given you just one example. Surely that is simply an outlier.

I would argue that the lack of millions of transitional fossils makes the theory of evolution look very bad. But then again, we can't really go by appearances, can we? Hence my cows & cows & cows video.

Why do some dolphins have leg buds that are eroded during embryonic development? Why do embryonic humans have long tails?

Why do marsupial fetuses develop the quadrate and articular bones (http://upload.wikimedia.org...) like reptiles that then develop into ear bones like mammals?

Mammalian embryos develop pharyngeal pouches which are morphologically indistinguishable from embryonic gills.

Many snakes develop embryonic legs that are destroyed during embryonic development. Many embryonic whales begin developing body hair that is later destroyed.

We know that embryonic development is where a creature is built. If evolution were to remove a feature, changing the creature's embryonic development so that this feature never appears would have the same effect as allowing the feature to develop a little and then kill it off.

Natural selection does not know the difference as long as the feature is not seen in the newborn.

Because of this we can predict that we should find cases where vestigial traits develop in the embryo and then are later destroyed. We should be able to use this to find hints of modern life's morphological past. In fact this is exactly what we see and the specificity is amazing.

On the other hand, the creationist can only hope without evidence that these anomalies will one day be explained. He can only hope that God made these anomalies almost as if he were trying to provide evidence for evolution.

Like I said, it is very likely that such anomalies have functions for embryonic development. I haven't looked it up at all, so I couldn't give you a direct explanation.

However, I find it strange that these are actually considered evidence for evolution. It's inexplicable why the DNA for the development of these structures would exist in the embryonic stage and not in later life unless the DNA for the development of these structures in embryonic stage was separate from the DNA for the development of these structures in later life. But if this is the case then it would follow that these structures have functions in embryonic stage and later on these structures would take on new functions, see what I mean? The fact that these teeth buds are absorbed is evidence that the function of these teeth buds was for a purpose relative to embryonic development. The question then remains as to whether this is a vestigial structure or not. That is, does this structure have an embryonic function or not?

At this point, the significance of these embryonic "anomalies" is reduced significantly. Because even if these structures no longer have significant functions, it doesn't then follow that this is because they evolved from other creatures. The functions they serve may be slight, yet necessary or at the very most, beneficial (though since life is extremely fragile in the embryonic stage, even a slight advantage is a huge advantage). Or, these may be structures that used to have functions in that animal (in embryonic stage, of course), yet mutations destroyed the function rendering the structure incomplete and useless.

Keep in mind, that I haven't even studied up on these structures. Even at face value, it's obvious that these anomalies aren't significant evidence for evolution.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"