Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It turns out that when you look at something called a dictionary, you get the meaning of words. Here's an example:
Just saying.
Don't click your tongue; cluck it.
I assume that anyone who starts a sentence with "To be quite frank" is lying.
I'm just asking that before you throw around the word "they" that you specify who or what they is. Is that too much to ask?
What kind of variations? I was given to believe that biological evolution merely stipulated that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation. If that's true, then variation is to be expected.
I think that before you can say that you need a clear, objective test to separate "Asian" from "African" that can be used by a blinded volunteer with 95 percent accuracy.
Just as one needs an objective test for Asian vs. African, so one needs an objective test for Husky vs. Mastiff.
In that sense, I agree with you. The definition of "species" is so nebulous that it has no real meaning–an argument I've made here repeatedly.
In English we say "different from" and some British people say "different to" but it's never "different than."These:
are no different than these:
Perhaps so, but remember that most of the classification was done by creationist Christians pre-Darwinism.
Again, this goes back to having a clear, indisputable, and universally-agreed upon meaning of the word "species."
Preaching to the choir.
Well, not necessarily. Some bacteria have evolved to eat nylon. Of course, they were not E. coli bacteria but flavobacterium.
I'm sure you realize that fruit flies have been defined into multiple species. As to whether this definition is justified and justifiable, that remains to be seen.
This is an incorrect use of the phrase "instead of," which is used for substitution. The correct phrase is "rather than," which also has the benefit of maintaining the parallelism.
I certainly found wrong usages, but I didn't ignore the point of the post.
The question that was asked when this was posted before still stands unanswered.
Let me get this straight.
They've been done too, so what's your excuse for claiming they still need done?
If you say so.
Well, aside from my field of study being drastically changed, I would not care about evolution being disproven all that much. It isn't like I have an effigy to Charles Darwin in my house. I appreciate the theory for its contributions, but a disproven theory must leave science behind and be left in memory, no matter how long it has stood the test of time previously.
We aren't ignoring the observational evidence, because if we did, evolution as a theory wouldn't even exist. At best, we are both looking at the same evidence and interpreting it differently. At worst, both sides are being spoonfed completely. Reality is probably some middle ground between those, and it varies from person to person. However, we aren't ignoring it if we claim it's wrong, because we'd have to know what it is to do that.
That would be interesting, but here's the issue with saying that: if you don't factor in belief with creationism, that means all your arguments have to equally validate all ideas of creationism, including those that aren't based in Christianity. Obviously, you don't do that. For someone to agree with your position completely, they have to be in the same religion as you.
Large variations are often the product of smaller variations building up over time, or in some cases, mutations in significant genes. Yes, single gene changes can have a huge impact, they just don't account for most of the big changes we see.
Not this again; seriously, you can get people that look more "Asian" through a couple of purely African roots. It could even happen in a single generation by chance, depending on what group in Africa you look at.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/93/2b/42/932b4217efb175f183468a2ec618a2bc.jpg well, Chinooks and Mastiffs may not be directly related, but Labrador Retrievers did come from Tibetian Mastiffs. So this http://dgicdplf3pvka.cloudfront.net/images/dogbreeds/large/Labrador-Retriever.jpg has ancestors like this http://artakridaperkasa.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/4/0/40405817/8517026_orig.jpg .
Only if you look at one generation. Additionally, those offspring will have mutations that neither of their parents have, so yes, they are slightly different. I don't know the mutation rate for dolphins, but in humans, your children will have between 40-60 mutations that neither yourself nor your significant other have. Most of them will be on junk that does nothing, but sometimes they do impact genes. It can be negative, such as with cystic fibrosis. It can be positive, such as being less prone to heart disease. It can be functionally neutral, such as changing eye color. The fact of the matter is, mutation happens, and you can easily observe it.
The problem lies in interpretation. If evolutionists had never seen a dog and knew nothing about them and found fossils of the Mastiff and Husky and then later in the layer found fossils of the Chinook, they would insist that either the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. We know from direct observation this is not what occurred, even if the Chinook appears later in the record. Worse yet, they would insist the Husky, Mastiff and Chinook were all separate species - simply because their appearances were different. Just as they have done in the fossil record.
These:
are no different than these:
If all those dinosaurs you listed are within different infraspecific taxa, then chimpanzees are just hairy humans, and chickens are T-rexes. The differences between them are not as minor as just seeing their heads would suggest. Practically all predatory birds would look the same if you drew them the same color, presented only their heads, and gave no mind to physical size comparisons. Except for owls, owls are pretty distinct.
That's just blatantly incorrect, as per bacteria experiments in lab.
Well, you manage to be wrong on all accounts here. Interesting thing about bacteria; they are such flexible organisms, that they can take surface proteins from dead bacteria that are highly different from themselves, and add them to their physiology. Hence why harmless bacteria can become infectious when they are in an environment containing dead infectious bacteria. So not only can bacteria change without mating outside of their taxa, they can do it with exposure to dead bacteria different from themselves.
You don't think having legs where eyes should be is a significant change within one taxa? Because that is a thing that can happen. That, and every human mutation ever, given that Homo sapiens sapiens is not only the last remaining member of the genus Homo, but the only species and infraspecific taxa within it. There is a mutation that occurred within the past 100 years that makes the people lucky enough to have it have such dense bones as to never have them break unless intentionally done so. The mutation was found when someone noticed a small number of people, despite being in car accidents and other such situations, rarely had bone fractures and never had their bones fully broken. So they investigated and found the mutation. There is also a group in Italy practically incapable of having high cholesterol thanks to a mutation that puts the cells that dispose of the excess into overdrive.
