Jump to content


Photo

Proving A Negative


  • Please log in to reply
189 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 31 August 2016 - 06:11 AM

Having thought about the recent question in the other thread where the poster, River Jordan, complained we can't change science as creationists or offer proof against evolution, I was going to give my arguments against evolution but I think an interesting side-issue is the discussion about proving negatives.

 

For my example, I would give a reasonable falsification of the positive, as being negative evidence falsified by the tollens. But beyond that it is impossible to prove the negative it seems.

 

So what am I getting at? Well, imagine as an analogy, a claim that one thousand dolphins had washed ashore on a beach, was claimed. If we got to the beach ten minutes later and there was 5 dolphins, that would mean that according to logical rules, 9,995 pieces of negative, invisible evidence, would falsify the claim.

 

But what do we say if someone objects and says, "but it still could somehow be true, there could have been 100 lorries waiting to take them away and the waves of the sea have washed away the marks left on the beach."

 

An absurd post-hoc extra hypothesis, invented to wriggle out of falsification. It's even worse if such excuses are made about things in the past, because we can't verify or falsify those claims, for example in the present, someone might have witnessed the 100 lorries or they might be caught on CCTV, or whatever.

 

But the fact some idiot can argue such a thing means that technically, how can we disprove a claim?

 

Is it not the same with evolution? The only thing we can reasonably provide as evidence it didn't happen is to show it didn't happen which would mean that the evidence to falsify evolution would be invisible evidence, like with the dolphins.

 

99.999999% of the transitionals, like those 9,995 dolphins, are conspicuously missing. (invisible evidence, but nevertheless falsification evidence, because absence of evidence is evidence of absence where the evidence is expected to certainly exist).

 

Question; how can we disprove evolution if evolutionists won't allow us to?

 

They are free to create imaginative, "escapes", so that they can forever argue that somehow evolution happened. But logically, the modus tollens rule means evolution is reasonably falsified;

 

- If evolution is true, it is unavoidable that the majority of the transitionals would be found in the fossils.

- The majority of transitionals are NOT found in the fossils, therefore evolution is false.

 

(CORRECT; modus tollens.)

 

(The objection that they have found a comparatively small handful of transitionals, related to the full percentage, is slothful induction fallacy.) The ad-hoc excuses as to why the fossils purposefully hide evolution but deliberately show the creatures that have always existed (real lifeforms) is quite silly. If the fossils are a history of time and the evolution of modern forms, it would show it. Instead it only shows factual life forms, not fictional ones.

 

EXAMPLE: a turtle or a bat or a jellyfish or a starfish, can be found fossilized, but the fictional things that would have evolved into turtles, bats, jellyfish and starfish, are conspicuously absent. But why would the fossils hide the fictional forms and only reveal the true forms, unless only the true forms exist, and the fictional transitional forms are fiction.


  • Blitzking likes this

#2 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 31 August 2016 - 07:05 AM

I also wonder about were the supposed "Common Ancestors" of ape and humans are. To call in one example. Would that also be an ape? Amateur-Creationist get usually attacked by garden-variety-Darwinists  when they say they didn't descent from apes. 

 

As far as can be verified with some certainty. The life forms we have fossils of appear to be sufficiently developed to a certain level. In fact they appear to have been very vivid. Capable to easily survive, although probably not under present day conditions. 

 

Of course their is the very exceptional case Darwinists like to cite in the form of Archaeopteryx:

 

769px-Archaeopteryx_bavarica_Detail.jpg

 

 

But what is the prove that it had reptile ancestors or that birds that descent from it? You guessed it: non. You first have to swallow the overall narrative a priori to "see" this strange bird as some kind of missing link! 



#3 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 744 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 31 August 2016 - 08:30 AM

But the fact some idiot can argue such a thing means that technically, how can we disprove a claim?

You can't, which is why principles like parsimony exist. The claim that 1000 dolphins died but all but 5 of them were carried off in the meantime doesn't provide a better explanation for the facts than the claim that there were only 5 dolphins, unless you have some facts that indicate some dolphins were carried away. You can't prove that they weren't carried away, but you can show that there's an explanation that adequately explains the evidence you have.
 

- If evolution is true, it is unavoidable that the majority of the transitionals would be found in the fossils.

I don't think you can support this claim. It's not necessarily true that the majority of transitionals would be found as fossils, you just think that the explanations for why that might not be true aren't credible. In the same way that it's not necessarily true that if a dolphin died somewhere, we will find its corpse or evidence of where it went in that place.

#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 31 August 2016 - 01:55 PM


 

 

 

Popoi:  It's not necessarily true that the majority of transitionals would be found as fossils, you just think that the explanations for why that might not be true aren't credible

 

 

I will offer you a counter-proposal. I shall accept your terms if,...if..you can give me a reason to believe the following analogy could be credulous;

 

I walk into a school someone claims is a boys and girls school. I notice girls in the halls. I go into classroom one, and the class if full of school girls. I go into two more classes and they are likewise full of girls. I go towards the gymnasium and only find girls toilets. Question; what rational reason do I have to believe the school would hide all of the boys?

 

In the same way, what rational reason do I have to believe the fossil record would hide all of the transitional species that would have had to exist?

 

To compound the problem, we know certain creatures had to evolve during certain stages, in the fossil record. That is to say in strata X we know this was the time many species were evolving. We find real-life species, but we find no transitionals in those period even though they had to have evolved during that time. AND, even though we find many fossilized species of real-life species. So it is a case of the classrooms hiding all of the boys, by random chance. What reason do I have to believe it?

 

You would have to give me a very, very powerful explanation, very convincing. What is that explanation?

 



#5 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 744 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 31 August 2016 - 05:32 PM

I will offer you a counter-proposal. I shall accept your terms if,...if..you can give me a reason to believe the following analogy could be credulous;
 
I walk into a school someone claims is a boys and girls school. I notice girls in the halls. I go into classroom one, and the class if full of school girls. I go into two more classes and they are likewise full of girls. I go towards the gymnasium and only find girls toilets. Question; what rational reason do I have to believe the school would hide all of the boys?

Your conclusion is based on a lot of assumptions you have coming in:
1. There would be a roughly equal number of girls and boys in the school. 
2. The boys would be roughly evenly distributed such that three classrooms would be a representative sample.
3. The bathroom facilities are paired.

None of those are particularly unreasonable, because we have plenty of examples of how schools work to go by, but there are plenty of ways that any of those assumptions could be subverted.
 

In the same way, what rational reason do I have to believe the fossil record would hide all of the transitional species that would have had to exist?

The difference here is that I don't think you have any particular supportable basis on which to claim how much evidence should be found.

How likely is it that an individual organism will end up fossilized? How many individuals existed in a particular "transition" period to be fossilized? How likely is it that we would find the fossils if they do exist?

To go back to the school analogy, the availability of evidence is less like you're checking classrooms and more like you're 1000 years in the future looking at ruins and trying to determine whether boys went to this school by looking at the fingerprints that were left behind when they revarnished the tables in the science lab.

#6 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 01 September 2016 - 04:44 AM

- If evolution is true, it is unavoidable that the majority of the transitionals would be found in the fossils.

No.

 

The conditions for fossils to be formed are rather extreme so in fact we would not expect the fossil record be even close to complete. So 'the majority of the transitionals' is expected not to be found.

 

To make your boy-girlschool parallel to be similar, it would be like looking at a couple of old pictures, some girls, some unsure (picture quality, but leaning to male) and you concluding that the school housed both boys and girls.

...while having access to other school records (which indicate the same)...



#7 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 01 September 2016 - 06:52 AM

Also, don't forget, missing transitionals is evidence for evolution.  ;)



#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 September 2016 - 07:09 AM

 

Fjuri: The conditions for fossils to be formed are rather extreme so in fact we would not expect the fossil record be even close to complete. So 'the majority of the transitionals' is expected not to be found.

 

 

That doesn't affect the percentage expected. The percentage of expected transitionals-per portion would be the same, because of the staggering number which would have had to exist if evolution is true. Each portion of the fossil record would not be expected to only show the same kinds of life, without any transitionals.

 

Like they say in America, "do the math". The transitionals would totally dwarf the actual species.

 

If we take every kind alive, and all of the kinds that existed in the fossils which are now extinct, and we get a tally of thousands and thousands of kinds, for each kind you would need many transitionals showing how that lifeform evolved (unless you have a group that all share an apomorphy, in which case you only have to show the transitions that led to it. so you don't have to show how s@x evolved for every type of mammal, you would just have to show how it evolved the once, because then those modern mammals would have inherited it).  

 

So think about what you said, you are saying that if we put 500 balls in a bag which are red, and 50 which are blue and shake the bag, you are saying that because we can only take a small portion from the bag, that the 25 we select from the bag will all be blue. (like you would argue the fossils are only a small portion)

 

The transitionals that would have had to exist, far, far outnumber the actual species that do exist. Because to change a quadruped progenitor for bats, into a bat, you have to go through many transitional species. It's the same for an ichthyosaur or a pterosaur or a pteradactyl or a dragonfly, the number of intermediate stages is an astronomical figure. Of course, some types of creature can be regarded as being part of a monophlyetic phylum, so I wouldn't expect that for each and every insect, you would have to explain how they got wings if they all had a common ancestor with wings. So I wouldn't expect you to provide transitionals for all types of snakes, because of the apomorphy of being legless, I would just expect transitionals for the original ancestor, that would have passed on the trait.

 

Think how many morphological changes you would need to make a terrestrial reptile quadruped into a sea-reptile. To say that if you randomly took a snapshot in time of history, a portion the fossil record represents, and you would never find any of the intermediates, at any stage, despite the astronomical numbers that MUST have had to exist had evolution happened, is BAD logic.

 

What rational reason is there to believe it? Would I believe if I went into a school they claimed was for boys and girls, and only found girls that it was a boys and girls school?

 

According to the rule of the modus-tollens, the falsification evidence for such a theory, is the absence of boys and boy-evidence. There is no way around it.

 

Think about it, in this thread evolutionists have confirmed my argument - basically you are telling me that evolution is unfalsifiable.

 

If evolution happened there would be transitionals, which would be evidence of evolution, and you are saying that if the transitionals aren't there, that this doesn't falsify evolution.

 

So then that is my point - logically it is impossible for me to falsify evolution, for the only thing we could expect had evolution not happened, is that the transitionals would not be there. But evolutionists argue that somehow evolution still could have happened.

 

Heads it's evolution, tails it's evolution. THAT IS the point of this thread - that it is a red-herring to ask creationists to disprove evolution when you will not allow anything to count as falsification-evidence of evolution.

 

  (or rather I should say, instead of obeying logical rules like the tollens, they hand-pick the type of falsification evidence you say would falsify it, full well knowing as they do, that such evidence does not exist. A RIGGED DICE!!!)

 

No, in logical terms, the missing transitionals simply do falsify evolution logically, even if the scientific community don't accept it. UNLESS, you argue punctuated equilibrium, but have you noticed how with each new additional theory of evolution, it gets closer and closer to a special creation? :)

 



#9 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 September 2016 - 07:22 AM

 

 

Popoi: How likely is it that an individual organism will end up fossilized? How many individuals existed in a particular "transition" period to be fossilized?

 

Much more likely than only ever finding the end product. You ask the probability - so think about it, if we have a variety of seahorses today, and bats, and starfish and jellyfish, and in the fossils we have a variety of other things which by design are complete fliers, or complete swimmers, etc...if the fossils have no reason to hide evolution, they would reveal the many more transitional species, that exist in the thousands.

 

It's complex. You would have to take "period X" between age X and age P and ask, "how many species does evolution say were evolving at this time." The answer would be, "MANY". And what do we see in those rocks? We see completed kinds of lifeforms, be it turtles, bats, starfish, jellyfish, spiders, literally whatever is found be it an extinct of extant lifeform, we only see those forms as complete fliers, complete swimmers, with all of the designs in place already. For example all bats, birds, pterosaurs, insect-fliers and pteradactyls, are all found as 100% fliers. NO SPECIES AT ALL are found evolving into them. LOL!

 

How can you even ask the question with a straight face? You are asking this; "If I put 500 redballs in a bag and 50 blue balls, if I select 25 balls what are the chances they would all be blue?" The chances are ZERO. ;)

 

 

 

Popoi: How many individuals existed in a particular "transition" period to be fossilized?

 

Exactly! Many, many, many more than actual real-life species! Humans allegedly evolved while seed plants remained in stasus, but apaprently between the Jurassic and now, all modern mammals and reptiles did, but for those time-periods what do we find? We only find real organisms, and the transitions remain fictional.



#10 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 01 September 2016 - 07:29 AM

That doesn't affect the percentage expected. The percentage of expected transitionals-per portion would be the same, because of the staggering number which would have had to exist if evolution is true. Each portion of the fossil record would not be expected to only show the same kinds of life, without any transitionals.

 

Like they say in America, "do the math". The transitionals would totally dwarf the actual species.

We are ALL transitionals.

Every species in the past and in the future is a transitional.

Yet they are all "actual species". Thus there are as much transitional species as there are actual species..

 

It seems like the definitions you use aren't applicable to the situation you're describing.



#11 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 01 September 2016 - 07:35 AM

Mike the Wiz, would an animal with photo-receptic on the skin have an advantage over an animal without photo-receptic on the skin? Especially with regard to detecting possible predators or food.



#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 September 2016 - 07:37 AM

 

We are ALL transitionals.

Every species in the past and in the future is a transitional.

Yet they are all "actual species". Thus there are as much transitional species as there are actual species..

 

It seems like the definitions you use aren't applicable to the situation you're describing.

 

That's a tautologous definition. I am referring to "true transitionals". It is begging the question to say we are all transitionals.

 

What I am saying is that evolution says there MUST have been intermediate transitions. For example, evolution theory says that turtles evolved from a land-reptile meaning for turtles to evolve fins with an interior scapular girdle to the ribcage, they had to have transitioned, from a progenitor that had an exterior girdle and legs.

 

Evolution says a bat evolved from a quadruped mammal, meaning bats must have had to transition between something that walks on all fours, to something which has it's fingers used as an apparatus/frame, for a wing. 

 

The true logical definition of, "transition" means a change of state.

 

In real-life Fjuri, no species is a transitional, logically, because they are all complete by design. They are not transitioning into anything. 

 

Think about it this way, if humans evolved from apes, that means they would have to transition from being arboreal to being truly bipedal, meaning this logically guarantees, clumsy inbetween stages. To "get to" a viable human design, you first have to go through transitions, so the design is "less than" perfect. Think if an ape in modern times, started to dwell on the ground and left the trees and existed like humans in caves, obviously we would say, "this creature isn't designed for walking because look at the way a human walks with ease, or a horse, a horse, pig, cow, dog cat or man, all have the correct type of limb and foot".

 

Tautologically by just classing everything as, "transitional", is to CHEAT. It's bad logic. Show me the real transitionals that would have had to exist! There are none!



#13 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 01 September 2016 - 07:39 AM

Tautologically by just classing everything as, "transitional", is to CHEAT. It's bad logic. Show me the real transitionals that would have had to exist! There are none!

Its not cheating, its understanding the theory.. 



#14 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 01 September 2016 - 07:41 AM

No.tr
 
The conditions for fossils to be formed are rather extreme so in fact we would not expect the fossil record be even close to complete. So 'the majority of the transitionals' is expected not to be found.

 
 While fossils generally would only form under rather extreme conditions, requiring rapid burial (like during a global flood). There is no reason to assume that fossilization (during one or more catastrophic events) would systematically discriminate against the fictitious transitional. In fact Darwinist logic of gradual change would require the vast majority of fossils to be transitional. 

 

The "We don't have transitional fossils, because they were not preserved" argument is a lame excuse for having no evidence or the actual evidence actually being in contradiction with the desired conclusion. 

 

To make your boy-girlschool parallel to be similar, it would be like looking at a couple of old pictures, some girls, some unsure (picture quality, but leaning to male) and you concluding that the school housed both boys and girls.
...while having access to other school records (which indicate the same)...

 

Not sure what you mean, but I think the photo archive comparison may have some potential. One just needs to analogize it correctly with geological strata.  


  • mike the wiz likes this

#15 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 September 2016 - 07:43 AM

 

 

Fjuri: Mike the Wiz, would an animal with photo-receptic on the skin have an advantage over an animal without photo-receptic on the skin? Especially with regard to detecting possible predators or food.

 

 

Fjuri, take my word for it, we didn't evolve. :) You have my solemn, peer-reviewed promise from the Lord! 

 

:P

 

I'm tired now...perhaps it's because I am an inferior, "because I'm not a product of controlled genetics".

 


  • Mike Summers likes this

#16 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 01 September 2016 - 07:45 AM

I may have sounded harsh before, if I offended anyone, I apologize.

 

What I meant to say is that, under the theory of evolution, each species must necessarily be a complete species during each of its stages of development.

 

Richard Dawkins explains it nicely here with a focus on the eye.:

 



#17 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 01 September 2016 - 07:46 AM

You have my solemn, peer-reviewed promise from the Lord! 

Are you God's peer, or does God have peers?  :blink:



#18 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 01 September 2016 - 07:48 AM

Mike the Wiz said:

Question; how can we disprove evolution if evolutionists won't allow us to?

This is the cruxt of the matter.

I think it's easy to surmise that we are creators. Moreover, it seems that free choice is necessary for us to have creativity. But, since we are intelligent creators, we can create what we want. Free choice and our creativity is the greatest "power" we have. That's one of the reasons that our enemy wants us to believe there is no such animal as free choice.

If we don't believe we have free choice, we can't change. We become victims the of nonsense we were taught-- and there's a lot of it. We believe what we are told--every single solitary word to quote the Charlie Brown comic strip.

If we don't use our creativity to change we will keep reaping what we sow. Like Einstein said, "stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

It's a cause-and-effect universe we live in with cause antecedent to an effect.

The disbelief in free choice is called fatalism. Here is the equivalent in biblical terminology "Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!" This belief promotes unabashed hedonism, hatred and greed. A contemporary restatemen would be: "It's all about me, I love me, I'm wild about me but, I don't care about you!" This promotes the idea that there is no place for everybody. It promotes the idea of survival of the fittest and we can use others to get what "we" want--regardless of our effect on others well-being. This instead of as the Bible says looking out for everybody. Following biblical principles, we can make enough pies so that everybody has a nice sized piece!

Instead, some of us believe as one evolutionist stated, "We're all just expendable metabolic units!" The Bible calls this worshiping life for s@x. Note to Evo's claim that life the art god. This is an age-old live restated.

Unfortunately, we can't out create another creator. We are stuck with what others create for us and what we create for them. However, since we know it's all created, we can create peace for ourselves and try to sell it to the other creators. If they buy it they can then create peace for themselves and sell that to others. That's what I'm trying to do. And I know we cooperate with each other (as well as our other brothers) in that endeavor.

But, as Dale Carnegie said, "Convinced against our will of the same opinion still." Our will is another name for our free choice creative ability.

One of the reasons I'm constantly pointing out that we are intelligent creators is that abuse of our creativity is the source of our disagreements--trying to out create another creator. Note commonality--what we all have in common is our intelligence and creativity.

As I promised you I'm not going to create opposition to you as a being. Thus I am self-limiting. I learned this from God and Jesus Christ. God as it says in his word will not create evil. He will not lie. Therefore, if I follow him I will not use my limited creative powers to create evil either.

I must confess that as a therapist it is a daunting task of try and convince my clients they are creating all of their misery by abusing their creativity. But sometimes I get favorable results and that's encouraging. At least I choose to see it that way. LOL :)

Keep up the good work, Mike, :)





What we are trying to do in this form is get them to cooperate with us. And
as you so well know that is not an easy task. We are trying to sell them as they are us the idea that creativity is much more powerful and practical and they are trying to sell us the idea that evolution did it!



#19 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 September 2016 - 07:49 AM

 

 

Fjuri. What I meant to say is that, under the theory of evolution, each species must necessarily be a complete species during each of its stages of development

 

(I didn't read anything you said to be offensive? ) 

 

I agree, the species must be complete but the design isn't. To have a bird exist as a successful avian aerodynamic design, it can be shown there has to be an irreducible amount of parts, in order for it to fly. This just means, it needs X parts in order to fly.

 

Every fossil ever found has been a complete species and a complete design, meaning if you find a dragonfly or a pterosaur or a bat or a bird, they all had the minimum requirement.

 

But I'm tired now, perhaps Mark can take over from me.



#20 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 01 September 2016 - 08:01 AM

Every fossil ever found has been a complete species and a complete design, meaning if you find a dragonfly or a pterosaur or a bat or a bird, they all had the minimum requirement.

Yet Ostriches can't fly, they're incomplete flyers. If only they has stronger and bigger wings, they could rules the skies!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users