Is there any disagreement within the scientific community that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil? If so, why is there disagreement? What is the scientific basis that warrants the dispute?
How is this relevant?
I want to know what you mean by this phrase in your question: “1. Is Archaeopteryx universally accepted as a transitional fossil? If not, why?” Why is it important? It will show me if you understand even the most basic points of the scientific method. So, answer the question.
For the purpose of this discussion pertaining to Archaeopteryx, let’s say that it is a fossil that confirms speciation.
Good for you for making up your own definition! From this it seems that you want a transitional fossil to be the dreaded half-crocodile half-duck that idiots like Comfort want. Considering that evolutionary theory doesn’t work this way, and that most changes are incremental, you show that you are ignorant in its basic format. Again, we have a creationist attacking something he is ignorant about.
There are….but none that confirms a speciation event occurred.
That’s pretty funny. first you want to claim a transitional fossil is something that “confirms speciation”. You say that there are indeed transitional fossils, but then we have you claiming that they don’t show speciation.
Which is it, BS? we have lines of fossils that show the incremental changes that are predicted by evolutionary theory, and every time we find a new one, creationists try ignore it. It would be cute if you were all five years old playing peekaboo, but it gets tedious with willfully ignorant adults.
Yes but my knowledge of the subject matter is irrelevant at this point. You can call it into question once you've given me an opportunity to examine whatever evidence you present.
No, it isnt’ irrelevant, no matter how much you stomp your little feet and say it is. Fossils and how they are made impact the idea of transitional fossils would determine how evolution works. If a creationist is so ignorant to want to see every single step, and think that this is possible then they are asking for the impossible for the sole reason to put off the inevitable. It’s nice that we don’t have eto depend on the fossil record to show that evolutionary theory works. It works right in a petri dish. You’ll of course claim that as “microevolution” but your bastardization of that term just makes you an amusing heretic to those creationists who claimed that they had the “truth” a hundred years ago.
This is an EPIC fail, Velkyn. Where is the scientific data, the peer reviewed papers, the evidence that demonstrates anything you’ve said….the very same material you demand of me and other theists?
You think I couldn’t give you references. Poor BS. So desperate that you don’t even consider that. The hypocrisy, the lies, sigh, it just can’t get any better. Poor BS, can’t possibly to some research on his own. Tsk. But again, it’s hilarious to see the Christian trying to put off the inevitable: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/miot-ekt032310.phphttp://articles.sfgate.com/1999-10-19/news/17703562_1_prefrontal-cortex-nature-neuroscience-brainhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129027124http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Brain-Evolution-Georg-Striedter/dp/0878938206
If the nonsense about souls and morals from god is correct, then brain damage should have no effect. It does. The best creationists have to claim is that the brain is some radio set for the soul and of course have no evidence of such a thing.
we have some physical evidence but again, as with fossils, a lot of Africa to unearth yet. we could find much earlier evidence of all of these, and then the poor creationists would claim that science was wrong since we followed the evidence and not their lies about how dogmatic science is. Again, demonstrating their willful ignorance and desperation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldowanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skhulhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
Lots of good references from those wiki articles, so do take it upon yourself to look at the originals. Unfortunatley for you, there is no similar things to the claims you’ve made.
This is almost laughable. It is evident that you have not researched the evolution of bipedalism and you should have said so rather than responding just so you could say you responded. Wanna try again?
You want to claim that I have not researched the evolution of bipedalism? Then show me what it supposedly says that doesn’t match with my review. I’m waiting. I have no problem in being shown wrong, but I do insist on being shown. I don’t go for ignorant men trying to make vague claims and of course, not supporting them again.
Now, in case you can’t find anything, let’s start you off here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skeletal_changes_due_to_bipedalism http://www.stanford.edu/~harryg/protected/chp15.htmhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/index.html
oh and that last link, has even more about how brains evolved and how we can see intelligence, altruism, etc. Very nice website.
Without something to support and validate your “concrete bits” I would simply be contending with your opinion, now wouldn’t I?? C’mon, I only gave you three simple questions rather than the 20-30 I could have. This is a great opportunity for you to meet the challenge of a “foolish” “lying” “willfully ignorant” theist and validate your claims with regards to the ToE. I already know that you cannot provide the same level of irrefutable empirical evidence you require of the theist to accomplish this so if you want to just concede now, I am fine with that.
Your wish is my command. Go to it, BS. I’ve given you lots of references and can give you more. As you can see, it’s not opinion at all, and your attempt to claim that you “already know” anything, fails again.