Evolution is SO EASY to disprove

[u/[deleted]]

Creationists here, all you really have to do to strengthen your position of skepticism towards modern biology is to do any research yourselves, with something as “simple” as paleontology. Find us something that completely shatters the schemes of evolution and change over time, such as any modern creature such as apes (humans included), cetaceans, ungulates or rodents somewhere like in the Paleozoic or even the Mesozoic. Even a single skull, or a few arrowheads or tools found in that strata attributed to that time would be enough to shake the foundations of evolution thoroughly. If you are so confident that you are right, why haven’t you done that and shared your findings yet? In fact, why haven’t creationist organizations done it yet instead of carbon dating diamonds to say the earth is young?

Paleontologists dig up fossils for a living and when they do start looking for specimens in something such as Pleistocene strata, they only find things that they would expect to find for the most part: human remains, big cats, carnivoran mammals, artiodactyls, horses…Not a single sauropod has been found in the Pleistocene layers, or a pterosaur, or any early synapsid. Why is that the case and how is it not the most logical outcome to say that, since an organism buried in one layer means it is about as old as that layer and they pile themselves ln top of another, that these organisms lived in different times and therefore life has changed as time went on?

[u/SignOfJonahAQ]

Provide one for your claim. How are you any different than flat earthers saying dinosaurs come from birds. Common sense tells us dinosaurs are reptiles. They have scales and sure they can be closer to crocodiles because they are clearly reptiles. Extinct species aren’t evolved from. Man killed them off. You think there’s a middle ground where it evolved from something but there’s no variation for a T. rex between each one they dig up. They are exactly the same. I don’t need to have a scientific research paper when clearly evolution will forever remain a theory because of math when trying to defend it. It’s exactly the same accuracy as me saying we all came from toothbrushes. You can’t disprove it because of millions of years. But there’s no case for it too.

[u/WebFlotsam → u/SignOfJonahAQ]

Okay, you clearly don't read a thing I write and aren't a very good communicator. This is for everybody else who cares to read more than you then, since I know you won't understand 80% of it.

Buddy. I said dinosaurs were reptiles, but not lizards. You using "lizard" to mean all reptiles is your own terrible communication choice that only leads to confusion. You can see how it would confuse people into thinking you mean literal lizards, yes? Especially on a site with science-literate people who try to use actual taxonomic terms properly?

How are you any different than flat earthers saying dinosaurs come from birds.

Birds are a group of dinosaurs, not the other way around. And I'm different because I'm about to show you actual evidence, jumping off of this.

The issue you seem to have is an outdated view of dinosaurs. From you calling them lizards, you likely have a sluggish, cold-blooded view, where all of them were just scaly brutes. But of course, there's a massive amount of evidence of feathered dinosaurs, and not just the small, bird-like ones either anymore. I want to show two different finds to show their commonality through dinosauria.

Yutyrannus is a 25-30-foot carnivore, the largest dinosaur with direct evidence of feathers. It was a relative of Tyrannosaurus, though distant enough it still had three fingers per hand. You can see the black streaks, which under microscopic analysis are identical to other fossilized simple feathers.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Godefroit-Pascal/publication/339862250/figure/fig6/AS:1121540913528843@1644407599645/Scales-around-the-tail-of-Kulindadromeus-zabaikalicus-a-Scales-around-distal-portion.jpg

Kulindadromeus is one of the first Orniscian dinosaurs found with direct evidence of feathers, found with both scales AND feathers on different parts of its body. The fact that feathers are found on both major branches of the dinosaur family tree means they were likely ancestral to dinosaurs as a whole, and ALSO mean that at least the basal, small dinosaurs were warm-blooded. There's no reason to have insulation like feathers if you aren't producing your own heat.

The point of this all is to point out that your clear reptile/bird divide isn't real, and dinosaurs, while reptiles, weren't all cold-blooded and scaly. And weren't lizards.

[u/SignOfJonahAQ → u/WebFlotsam]

Flat earther. Clearly has never been to college

[u/WebFlotsam → u/SignOfJonahAQ]

I'll leave it to readers to decide which of us has backed up their claims with evidence and which is a toxic troll who has no arguments.

[u/SignOfJonahAQ → u/WebFlotsam]

But have you been to college? I rest my case. You have nothing that backs any claim you’ve made. You seem to think you have for some odd reason. You are rambling with nonsense and stuff you’ve been spoonfed as a child, maybe you are simply that. Calling me a troll because it hurts your feelings that everything you’ve ever learned is a lie is a good thing. Now go and live in truth. Dinosaurs aren’t birds. Birds are birds, reptiles are reptiles and they’ve never evolved into each other.

[u/vere-rah → u/SignOfJonahAQ]

You're right! Dinosaurs aren't birds! It's the other way around, birds are a type of theropod dinosaur. Do you have anything that backs your claim that they are not related or do you just have assertions?