Should at Least Make Evolutionists Consider

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Why, and how, does the muntjac deer have only seven pairs of chromosomes?

Please don't look this up, at least until you've considered for a moment how weird this is. Imagine you have 20 pairs of chromosomes, and you have a baby that has sixteen pairs. He shouldn't be able to breed with the rest of your species.

Is this at least weird? A regular deer has around 40-70 chromosomes. Is it at least strange that he can even be alive having lost that much genetic information? One more halving and he'll be a fruit fly (they have 4 pairs).

[Diogenes]

I do not believe evolutionists have proven that rats and elephants descended from a similar common ancestor and we have no fossil of a creature transitioning from one species to the other.

YOU do not believe? ... and your credentials in evolutionary biology are . . . ?
If you do not personally qualify as an expert in this area, then you need to support your claim with evidence. You have not; therefore, your claim is as persuasive as the squawk of a duck.
... not even a real duck, just an Oregon Duck.

[marke]

I do not believe evolutionists have proven that rats and elephants descended from a similar common ancestor

Turns out, rats and elephants are about as distantly-related from each other as it's possible for placental mammals to be:

Rats would be in the Euarchontoglires.
So their last common ancestor would be something like this:

So far, the earliest known placental mammal (placentals are mammals that are neither monotremes like the playpus, nor marsupials like opossums).

Presently, the most closely-related animals to elephants are the sirenians, like the manatee and hyraxes, which look somewhat like rodents. This is based on anatomy and DNA analysis.

and we have no fossil of a creature transitioning from one species to the other.

Since we have directly observed speciation, it wouldn't matter, but in cases where there are a very large number of fossilized specimens, such as horses, ammonites and so on, we do indeed have such transitional forms. Would you like to learn more about that?

What would a missing like fossil of a creature related to sirenians and elephants but not sirenian nor elephant look like?

[The Barbarian]

I do not believe evolutionists have proven that rats and elephants descended from a similar common ancestor

Turns out, rats and elephants are about as distantly-related from each other as it's possible for placental mammals to be:

Rats would be in the Euarchontoglires.
So their last common ancestor would be something like this:

So far, the earliest known placental mammal (placentals are mammals that are neither monotremes like the playpus, nor marsupials like opossums).

Presently, the most closely-related animals to elephants are the sirenians, like the manatee and hyraxes, which look somewhat like rodents. This is based on anatomy and DNA analysis.

and we have no fossil of a creature transitioning from one species to the other.

Since we have directly observed speciation, it wouldn't matter, but in cases where there are a very large number of fossilized specimens, such as horses, ammonites and so on, we do indeed have such transitional forms. Would you like to learn more about that?

What would a missing like fossil of a creature related to sirenians and elephants but not sirenian nor elephant look like?

The demostylata. Primitive versions of elephants, sirenians, and hyraxes.

[marke]

I do not believe evolutionists have proven that rats and elephants descended from a similar common ancestor

Turns out, rats and elephants are about as distantly-related from each other as it's possible for placental mammals to be:

Rats would be in the Euarchontoglires.
So their last common ancestor would be something like this:

So far, the earliest known placental mammal (placentals are mammals that are neither monotremes like the playpus, nor marsupials like opossums).

Presently, the most closely-related animals to elephants are the sirenians, like the manatee and hyraxes, which look somewhat like rodents. This is based on anatomy and DNA analysis.

and we have no fossil of a creature transitioning from one species to the other.

Since we have directly observed speciation, it wouldn't matter, but in cases where there are a very large number of fossilized specimens, such as horses, ammonites and so on, we do indeed have such transitional forms. Would you like to learn more about that?

What would a missing like fossil of a creature related to sirenians and elephants but not sirenian nor elephant look like?

The demostylata. Primitive versions of elephants, sirenians, and hyraxes.

What proof do you have that these fossils were intermediate links between creatures known today as separate species? Have they genetic proof?

[The Barbarian]

I do not believe evolutionists have proven that rats and elephants descended from a similar common ancestor

Turns out, rats and elephants are about as distantly-related from each other as it's possible for placental mammals to be:

Rats would be in the Euarchontoglires.
So their last common ancestor would be something like this:

So far, the earliest known placental mammal (placentals are mammals that are neither monotremes like the playpus, nor marsupials like opossums).

Presently, the most closely-related animals to elephants are the sirenians, like the manatee and hyraxes, which look somewhat like rodents. This is based on anatomy and DNA analysis.

and we have no fossil of a creature transitioning from one species to the other.

Since we have directly observed speciation, it wouldn't matter, but in cases where there are a very large number of fossilized specimens, such as horses, ammonites and so on, we do indeed have such transitional forms. Would you like to learn more about that?

What would a missing like fossil of a creature related to sirenians and elephants but not sirenian nor elephant look like?

The demostylata. Primitive versions of elephants, sirenians, and hyraxes.

What proof do you have that these fossils were intermediate links between creatures known today as separate species? Have they genetic proof?

Anatomical data shows that these fossil animals were related to sirenians, elephants, and hyraxes. Would you like me so show you some detail? So far no one's found DNA that old, of course, but as you just saw, anatomical data is consistent with DNA.

[marke]

I do not believe evolutionists have proven that rats and elephants descended from a similar common ancestor

Turns out, rats and elephants are about as distantly-related from each other as it's possible for placental mammals to be:

Rats would be in the Euarchontoglires.
So their last common ancestor would be something like this:

So far, the earliest known placental mammal (placentals are mammals that are neither monotremes like the playpus, nor marsupials like opossums).

Presently, the most closely-related animals to elephants are the sirenians, like the manatee and hyraxes, which look somewhat like rodents. This is based on anatomy and DNA analysis.

and we have no fossil of a creature transitioning from one species to the other.

Since we have directly observed speciation, it wouldn't matter, but in cases where there are a very large number of fossilized specimens, such as horses, ammonites and so on, we do indeed have such transitional forms. Would you like to learn more about that?

What would a missing like fossil of a creature related to sirenians and elephants but not sirenian nor elephant look like?

The demostylata. Primitive versions of elephants, sirenians, and hyraxes.

What proof do you have that these fossils were intermediate links between creatures known today as separate species? Have they genetic proof?

Anatomical data shows that these fossil animals were related to sirenians, elephants, and hyraxes. Would you like me so show you some detail? So far no one's found DNA that old, of course, but as you just saw, anatomical data is consistent with DNA.

Just because fossil bones of one creature bear similarities to fossil bones of other creatures does not mean the creatures are related to some other common ancestral creature somehow.

[The Barbarian]

Just because fossil bones of one creature bear similarities to fossil bones of other creatures does not mean the creatures are related to some other common ancestral creature somehow.

Actually, it does. For example, based on the ear bones of birds and crocodiles, Huxley, over 150 years ago predicted that there would be transitional forms between birds and dinosaurs.

And eventually, his prediction, based on those similarities, was confirmed. Homology is powerful evidence of common descent. And now, we have genetic evidence from remaining archosaurs like birds and crocodiles, showing that common descent.

And when a bit of heme from a T. rex was found, it turned out to be more like that of birds than like that of other reptiles. And it all started with how fossil and anatomical evidence of birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs were similar.

[marke]

Just because fossil bones of one creature bear similarities to fossil bones of other creatures does not mean the creatures are related to some other common ancestral creature somehow.

Actually, it does. For example, based on the ear bones of birds and crocodiles, Huxley, over 150 years ago predicted that there would be transitional forms between birds and dinosaurs.

And eventually, his prediction, based on those similarities, was confirmed. Homology is powerful evidence of common descent. And now, we have genetic evidence from remaining archosaurs like birds and crocodiles, showing that common descent.

And when a bit of heme from a T. rex was found, it turned out to be more like that of birds than like that of other reptiles. And it all started with how fossil and anatomical evidence of birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs were similar.

Similarities of bone structures do not prove evolution like evolutionists want to believe, especially since the rat and the elephant do not have similar bone structures yet evolutionists claim they are closely related in the evolutionary tree of life.

[Difflugia]

Similarities of bone structures do not prove evolution like evolutionists want to believe, especially since the rat and the elephant do not have similar bone structures yet evolutionists claim they are closely related in the evolutionary tree of life.

In this and other threads, people have been explaining at length the support for the theory, but you just keep saying things that are not even wrong. You're trying to explain away the evidentiary power of homology with a handwaving dismissal. Why specifically does homology fail as evidence for evolution?

[The Barbarian]

Just because fossil bones of one creature bear similarities to fossil bones of other creatures does not mean the creatures are related to some other common ancestral creature somehow.

Actually, it does. For example, based on the ear bones of birds and crocodiles, Huxley, over 150 years ago predicted that there would be transitional forms between birds and dinosaurs.

And eventually, his prediction, based on those similarities, was confirmed. Homology is powerful evidence of common descent. And now, we have genetic evidence from remaining archosaurs like birds and crocodiles, showing that common descent.

And when a bit of heme from a T. rex was found, it turned out to be more like that of birds than like that of other reptiles. And it all started with how fossil and anatomical evidence of birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs were similar.

Similarities of bone structures do not prove evolution like evolutionists want to believe, especially since the rat and the elephant do not have similar bone structures yet evolutionists claim they are closely related in the evolutionary tree of life.

Observed evolution and observed speciation events prove evolution. Homologies of the kind you've learned about here, confirm that it's been going on for a very long time. And perhaps you forgot but I showed you that rats and elephants are about as distantly related as any two placental mammals can be. If you can show me in the literature where any scientist claims that rats and elephants are closely related, I'd like very much to see it. What do you have?

And there are very few bones in rats that are not also found in elephants. Can you name even one bone in the axial or appenducular skeletons of rats that does not exist in elephants? The main difference is the baculum which is absent in most ungulates, but is present in the rat. Would you like to learn about the homologies of placental mammalian skeletons?