PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Kenichthys campbelli

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In another thread noone made many incorrect claims.  Instead of repeating his cut and paste tactics, let's examine some of his erroneous claims up close and see how wrong he and his source really are...

First of all, Kenichthys is based on one incomplete skull with no articulated bones, making it impossible to assemble an entire skull.

Hmmm, only one incomplete skull?  It took me 10 minutes to prove this on wrong, from here:
Skulls

"The fossil is a small coelacanth fish, Kenichthys campbelli, which comes from China and is roughly 400 million years old. The scientists have found skulls of several individuals: some of the bones have fallen apart, but they are so well preserved that it is possible to see exactly how they fit together."

So right off the bat, noone's source shows it is highly inaccurate.  Many skulls of Kenichthys have been found, not just one incomplete skull.

The so-called internal nostril is what seems to be a notch between the premaxillary and maxillary. This notch could result from missing bone.

Well, since more than one skull has been found and we can see how the bones all fit together, this claim is wrong too, the 'notch' does NOT result from a missing piece of bone.
And what I find fascinating is that the source makes this claim but in noone's next line it says:
The lack of pictures or even illustrations of this incomplete skull makes an independent analysis impossible.

So the source hasn't even SEEN pictures of the the fossil evidence yet that doesn't stop them from hypothesizing (incorrectly) that a major discovery in the evolution of tetrapods is nothing more than a missing piece!  Without seeing, examining or analyzing the eivdence, they declare it wrong.  Sorry, that's not how science works.

Most articles on this fossil are so filled with evolutionary interpretations that they have no independently useful data.

Well, since evolution is a fact and evolutionary interpretations are the only valid interpretations we have and these evolutionary interpretations are VERIFIED by independent data, I'd say that's pretty useful information!

Also, the fossil is from China, where there is known to be a large fake fossil industry, and there is no indication that the authors personally found the fossil in the ground.

Again, what evidence does the source have that these fossils are fake?  They wish it was but that's it.  Typical creationist tactics, make unfounded assertions and hope some of their audience is gullable enough to believe them, lieing for Jesus.

Even if they are right about the notch being an internal nostril, it is dated as 25-30 million years too old to be transitional between fish and amphibians. There are several types of lobe-finned fish that are considered ancestors to amphibians that are dated younger than Kenichthys but show no evidence of this internal nostril. This fact alone eliminates Kenichthys from being a transitional fossil between fish and amphibians.

And here we see how really ignorant this source really is.  Transitional does not mean intermediate.  This source does not understand that fact and so it's claim that Kenichthys can't be transitional is simply wrong.  
So what we have here is a claim that is out and out wrong, makes deceptive statements and just doesn't understand evolution.  
I'd like to see noone try to defend his claim, but I don't think he's up to it.  We'll see...
Noone, back to you, we've disproven your source and the claims it made, got anything else or do you admit you're wrong?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:25 AM on March 19, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nice rebuttal, Demon.

The plain fact is, Creationists cannot come up with a reasonable explanation of their own  explaining  why the fossil record shows change over time.  Not only that, but why the fossil record shows a definite progression of life evolving over time.  The best they can come up with is the Biblical Flood, which is ridiculous, and has no scientific proof.  

Only evolution can explain what we see in the fossil record.  And explain it very well, indeed.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:48 PM on March 20, 2008 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fossils are only a tiny part of the proff for evolution. Even without fossils we could easily prove evolution.

Gentics allows us to see DNA and how it has slowly changed.

Selective breeding is blatently obvius proof that the mechanisums are there.

New viruses, such as supper bugs which are imune to anti-biotics, have arissen in the pasdt decades.

A baby inside the womb goes through different stages of our previus evolution
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 04:43 AM on August 20, 2008 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.