So are we just going to keep pretending there isn't a MAJOR problem of transitionary forms?

New user here, perhaps you can practice induction instead of deduction like a rational complex adaptive system, cunt

Every fossil is a transitional form. Problem solved.

Excuse me New user but there's no need to be so rude. I don't know if you are aware of your own behavior online but you are being a really mean and vicious cyber bully to me. Pls self moderate your behavior ok.

As to your post I don't know what any of that means so I'm going to go do some research and come back. Thanks.

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

>they still aren't there.
yeah they are, look at black people and the people they're mixing with

First off, that skull is from Paranthropus not Australopithecus. Also, here you go.

THIS THIS THIS THIS

>But by itself DNA still doesn't prove evolution
No it does.

>Genetic similarities can point to common descent but it can also be explained by a common designer using 'core building blocks'.
No. I'll get to this in a minute.

>For example if an organism has eyes then it makes sense that they would share the same DNA sequence with another that also had eyes because there is an efficient basic command the designer can input to code for eyes across all organisms that have them.
DNA is a universal code. 4 letters form a word that is three letters long. That's 64 combinations. There are only 20 amino acids and 3 of these words are just stop codons. The genetic code is degenerate.
That means there are possible changes that can be made (Primarily to the third letter in each word) that will have no impact on the organism regardless of their placement.
Likewise some alterations that do change proteins can go unnoticed and only mildly impact the organism, even ignoring mutations in areas that don't code or regulate.
Because of this the efficient command idea doesn't really hold much water.

Let's put aside for a moment that there are multiple completely separate lineages of eye that are strikingly similiar yet quite different because they are analogous(invertebrate and vertebrate eyes, one is everse and the other is inverse) that show evidence against a common designer since a common designer would simply implement the better eye twice.

Because of everything I've mentioned we can track evolution. Look at a gene that persists across multiple species and you can tell relatively how far back they've diverged because of the molecular clock (Since the accumulation of mutations is relatively constant seen over large enough populations), assuming its' constancy and that there's no really strong selection I guess.
A gene in a human diverges more strongly from the corresponding gene in a fish than that same gene in a mouse.

Continue learning properly.

Cool, I have never seen anyone put it this way before where you can demolish this 'core building blocks' hypothesis; that's pretty nifty.

I just tried that blind spot test on Wikipedia and it freaked me out

wasn't aware of it until this thread, at least I didn't realize the blind spot was such a literal thing

there's an L and R and you keep your eye the appropriate distance from the corresponding letter, and the other just disappears

then your brain auto fills in where it is with the default colour surrounding it

that was exciting

because evolution doesn't real

>Genetic similarities can point to common descent but it can also be explained by a common designer using 'core building blocks'.
Only if you're a grossly ignorant person employing motivated reasoning. In the real world, with designed things that have some ancestry like cars, there is a lot of "cross lineage" transfer. A successful widget from one line of cars makes it into completely separate lines of cars. Reclining seats. Catalytic converters. Etc etc.

The fact that there is a taxonomy tree of life for animals means that there is no cross lineage transfer. There are no common building blocks that are used. Instead, every building block is discovered and evolved separately in every lineage. Often, there are lineages that discovered a very useful building block, that would be useful in other lineages, but because there is no cross lineage transfer, that discovery stays in that lineage.

For example, there are no mammals with feathers. Why are there no mammals with feathers? There are flying mammals, i.e. bats, but they don't fly with feathers.

Almost every creature created for fiction cannot be placed in a modern taxonomic tree because it has characteristics from several independent lineages that only appear in those lineages.

So, what you wrote is exactly wrong, and is attributable only to ignorance, dishonesty, and/or trolling.

Also, OP needs to read a book, like evo 101. I'd suggest The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins, and Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne.

I also suggest the video series The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism by Aronra, as they are high quality and very informative.

Finally, I strongly suggest the Broward University Darwin Day lecture by Aronra. Despite having high school and a university class, and reading the above books, I did not actually understand evolution until I watched that lecture.

And for good measure, Aronra's Phylogeny Challenge youtube video.