image
The picture you sent is not a transitional animal. It is a complete animal. With evolution it is ones with partial heads bits of bones here and there the head in the wrong place. etc. These are the transitional ones. it is these that evolution doesn't have as evidence.
(Picture was posted two posts above the comment)
89 comments
"With evolution it is ones with partial heads bits of bones here and there the head in the wrong place. etc."
Uhm... how about no!
Seriously, what is it with these tards? Make the slightest simplification of their beliefs and they're crying about persecution and misrepresentation, yet they're apparently free to tell us that science claims whatever deluded nonsense they can make up.
In this case, this guy is straight-out saying "No, that's not what you believe. Let me tell you what you believe, and it's crazy..."
Orestes: "I really hope a teacher did not recite this bullshit to him"
If you're assuming that the dunsapy here received ever received any education on evolution, you are being far too generous.
He/she was likely born into a fundie family and was raised (homeschooled?) to believe all these blatant lies about evolution, and has never grown to question his/her beliefs because life inside the fundie-box is far more comfortable.
Look son, the mighty triceratops!
...
Dad it's a cow...
Well, it could be triceratops.
*Makes as much sense as OP.
They are so totally missing the point. Any animal born with partial heads, bits of bone here and there, and heads in the wrong place, wouldn't survive long enough to breed. That is the whole point of evolution.
Mutations happen. The ones that help with survival get passed on; the ones that hinder don't.
Could it BE any simpler??
The picture you sent is not a transitional animal. It is a complete animal.
It is a transitional animal. All animals are transitional animals.
With evolution it is ones with partial heads bits of bones here and there the head in the wrong place. etc
No that's not what transitional animals are like. You inability to understand that is based in your fundamental misunderstanding and misperception of just exactly what it is that evolutionary theory states. Evolutionary theory does not state there there will transitional animals with half formed and non-functioning features, it does not state that one type of animal will ever give birth to a different type of animal. The changes postulated by evolutionary theory happen slowly through multiple generations according to natural selection and enviromental pressures.
These are the transitional ones. it is these that evolution doesn't have as evidence.
Evolutionary theory doesn't predict that fossils like you describe would exist to be found and therefore is not affected in any way by the non-existence of such fossils. In fact if such a fossil were to be found then it would likely lead to a rethinking of evolutionary theory rather than a confirmation of it.
HOW? HOW can anyone who can use a computer to type and post opinions not have enough brain cells to understand evolution? Are they genetic throwbacks from [much] earlier generations of humans? Are they mentally challenged because of toxins in the air? Did their mothers smoke cigarettes, crack AND meth while pregnant? WTF?
It's not wholly fish, or wholly amphibian. It's transitional. (although, technically since evolution is an ongoing process, WE'RE all members of a transitional species, too)
What this moron is referring to is a partial fossil that has been highly disturbed at some point in the burial process. So apparently, an artist's reconstruction of the scattered bones is not admissible as evidence, even though most creationists mock fossil evidence that doesn't include every last bone in the animal's body.
@OhRly: You must be new here. About 3/4 of our Christian fundie quotes are strawman denunciations of evolution. Welcome to the club, and if you want a real mindfuck, try reading anything published by Answers in Genesis.
image
Yes, we know that only the Crocoduck is what Creationists consider to be a "true" transitional animal. Not that it is a real animal, but that it makes people laugh at TOE and Biology...and shows how stupid the fundies can be.
The funnything is that even THIS is considered a fully formed animal, if it existed. So the creationists have moved the goal post outside of the football field.
"The picture you sent is not a transitional animal. It is a complete animal. With evolution it is ones with partial heads bits of bones here and there the head in the wrong place. etc. These are the transitional ones. it is these that evolution doesn't have as evidence."
You need to be quiet now.
Read more. Type less.
Strawman fail. Evolution does not say that an animal like this would exist with a monkey head, for instance, or the head at the end of the tail.
And a "transitional animal" does not mean half fish, half monkey or some nonsense that you read on AiG or from Hovind. There were no retarded monkey fish frogs. Nor does evolution state that a cat gives birth to a dog. Grow up.
Understanding of evolution fail.
ALL species are transitional phases, beucase evolution is a constant. It's not like if a species evolves wings then there's a "transitional phase" where they're born with wings halway out of their backs, it wouldn't help them. some would be born with wings, and if it was helfpul, they would survive longer, and therefore mate more, and pass on their genetic materials.
And once again, a mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging throwback assumes that everyone is as stupid as it is, and will mistake utter nonsense for authoritative wisdom. Monkey see, monkey do.
Please let me point out that there are a LOT of Christian who believes in either an allegorical interpretation of the Bible. Or literal to a certain limit.
People like dunsapy induces a lot of vigorous introduction of the cranium to a hard surface.
Please let me point out that there are a LOT of Christian who believes in either an allegorical interpretation of the Bible. Or literal to a certain limit.
People like dunsapy induces a lot of vigorous introduction of the cranium to a hard surface.
Well, it has the head of a croc, the flippers of a seal, and the tail of an eel. WTF else do you want? a Mohawk hairstyle?
Umm. dunsapy... A transitional animal IS a complete animal.
And no. Evolution does not involve partial bits of bones here and there, or heads in the wrong place.
Every living member of every living species is transitional.
And the process of evolution is well documented by countless observers.
Yet as creationist Michael Behe, the father of the concept of "irreducible complexity", correctly points out, it would be virtually impossible for multiple changes to take place at the same time. One thing must change at a time. To go from a fish to an amphibian requires multiple changes. The fish has to develop lungs, the skull has to change its bone structure and separate from the shoulders, limbs have to develop and the animal has to lose its scales. Each of these changes has to take place in some sequence; so what we expect to find are animals that are at various points along the sequence: lungs but fins and scales, the rearmost bones of the skull separating and becoming rudimentary shoulder bones, fins with arm bones in them, the gradual disappearance of scales, etc. And that's exactly what we find: a sequence of animals each at a further point along the road of morphing from a fish to an amphibian.
No.
Transitional does mean "possessing birth defects and ready to die as soon as it leaves the womb". Evolutionary biology does not claim that transitional forms exist that have partial heads, bits of bone here and there, or their heads in the "wrong place" (whatever that means; I'd figure that wherever your head is happens to be the right place as long as it can function).
You fail.
But, dunaspy, he *knows* that evolution is a lie and that *all* scientists are liars, so what is a poor soul to do...
The best I could do, dunaspy, was to find a catduck:
image
I love how they just keep redefining shit. Now "Evolutionists" have to prove the existence of a being that Evolution never even purported.
That's like saying "Oh yea, well if the Bible's true, prove VISHNU EXISTS!"
Unfortunately, that's not what scientists teach that transitionals are, and we listen to scientists because they usually know what they're talking about.
And may I say that "Dunce Happy" is the perfect username for you?
Actually, in evolution, every animal is a transition... but since everybody else is pointing that out, I'm just going to leave this to them.
*sigh*
A "crocoduck" would be evidence for God, fuckwit.
Also, I find it ironically humorous that a site called "FreeThoughtPedia" requires you to go their site to view a picture. :P
It's a leopluradon, Charlie. A magical leopluradon!
"Partial heads" made me lol. Obviously these people just like to make stuff up. No surprise...
All transitional forms have to be viable because a huge part of evolution is surviving long enough to pass down your genes, and if you do so you're probably doing something right.
A creature with incomplete body parts and organs would never survive birth, so it would never procreate.
This clearly demonstrates how religious fundamentalists, despite claims to the contrary (ahem...Ray Comfort...ahem), don't actually want to use science to determine the truth. They aren't looking for what is supported by evidence or what is most likely accurate. They just want to disprove evolution because, well, to them, it's much simpler to believe that magicmandunnit is a sufficient response.
This is the pure definition of stupidity. The dictionary doesn't even come close to defining 'stupid' this well.
When will fundies grasp the fact that continuing to spout off about evolution when they don't know the first, miniscule, most basic thing about it only highlights in neon writing just how completely and utterly ignorant they are? Do they have NO self-respect?
what?
what?
seriously, what?
@[b]Reverend Jeremiah and Frogflayer ,
'Crocoduck' is a misnomer, and I shall explain why 'duckodile' would be more accurate.
According to convention, the first is from a croc fucking a duck, and the second, a duck fucking a croc. IOW, the root name of the sire's kind precedes that of the dam's in this type of portmanteau.
I don't know that any croc could bypass a postcoital snack. Hence....
Every animal who survives birth and long enough to procreate* is a transitional animal, stupid! The ones who DON'T survive, are the strange mixed ones you folks blather on about. You HAVE to survive long enough to procreate, or your genes won't be carried onto the next generation.
What about the platypus? Doesn't that look like a transitional form, even in your eyes?
*Guess I'm no transitional animal then, as I have not been able to procreate... I'm End of the Line.
Wait...you're upset that our evidence doesn't look like some faked, cobbled together Javan Mermaid? For the record, that was a mummified monkey torso sewn to a fish and passed around circuses during the 19th Century as a real mermaid.
Dude, this is it. This was real. The missing link between fish and amphibian. You're looking at it. Based on fossil records, this is what you were asking for. Just because it looks REAL, which you weren't expecting, doesn't mean this isn't it. Now you're just being obtuse, refusing the evidence in front of you.
I just thought. Fundies deny evolution - But if god made us in his own image back then it means god is like 5 feet tall. And on a similar note, if jesus does show up he'll be a short middle-eastern bloke whith radical new philosophies, I can see that going over well
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.