proving evolution as just a "theory"

[The Times]

So speciation is "evolution" then? No problem; speciation has been abserved both in the lab and in the field.

We need to drfine our terms properly. Species is kind. The fish after its kind, the dog after its kind, the cat after its kind.

Species is kind. Inter species mutations is adaptation, is not evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Thanks, but I have already learnt much of this at school and I find it an Evolution bashing at its best.

Based on your posts, you appear to have a shaky grasp of what the Theory of Evolution says or how it works. That's why I'd suggest more time learning about it.

Sure. I have provided interconnected embedded algorthimic patterns existing across time and throughout all matter, whether it be the DNA, the Aromic arrangements or the chemical molecular configuration and all use Fibonnaci or a baseline connected algorithm. Just like engineering equations, you can use one equation to yield another is what is evidence that there is a single algorithmic path and a single intellegencia.

You've made this assertion before, but that's all it is: an assertion. If you want to demonstrate the existence of a creative force behind the universe, you'll need to do a lot more than that.

In fact if we had millions of years of misses we should see failed life forms and different pathways taken. We don't and so the onus falls back on the Evolutionists to show where these failed pathways exist scientifically, and I mean quantiitvely and qualatively.

We do. There are loads of extinct species that no longer exist, and conversely lots of species that exist today that didn't exist in the past.

 

[The Times]

The same triggers which mutate the same kind of species, are inherently built into that specie for the purpose of adaptation. The single intelligencia had already thought about it.

 

[The Times]

Based on your posts, you appear to have a shaky grasp of what the Theory of Evolution says or how it works. That's why I'd suggest more time learning about it.

I don't particularly agree with their definitions of terms, after much scrutiny.

You've made this assertion before, but that's all it is: an assertion. If you want to demonstrate the existence of a creative force behind the universe, you'll need to do a lot more than that.

You say, but why. Evolution is a Theory. Why must an Evolution theory be taken on its assertion and any other counter assertion needs to be accompanied by evidence. The evidence are found in interconnected equations.

We do. There are loads of extinct species that no longer exist, and conversely lots of species that exist today that didn't exist in the past.

But they were not failed species. They existed and became extinct. We are talking about failed species.

 

[Speedwell]

The same triggers which mutate the same kind of species, are inherently built into that specie for the purpose of adaptation. The single intelligencia had already thought about it.

I wish I understood what you are talking about. Is there any genetic or biological evidence for it?
BTW, the singular of "species" is also "species." "Specie" is a word which means coined gold.

 

[Speedwell]

But they were not failed species. They existed and became extinct. We are talking about failed species.

What's the difference?

 

[The Times]

I wish I understood what you are talking about. Is there any genetic or biological evidence for it?
BTW, the singular of "species" is also "species." "Specie" is a word which means coined gold.

You understood.

 

[The Times]

What's the difference?

Huge difference. Evolution Theory hinges on the assertion that life permeated through much death states. In fact the embedded equations of those lifeforms prevented them from being sustained. It is like life in a short space of time and followed by death. The environmental factors were negligible to its inability to sustain life.

The species that existed failed because of adaptations issues and evironmental issues, not so ss far as the assertion of the failed species according to Evolutionists. Where are these Chimeras.

 

[The Times]

There is no evidence of failed species? Extinct yes, but failed no.

 

[Speedwell]

Huge difference. Evolution Theory hinges on the assertion that life permeated through much death states. In fact the embedded equations of those lifeforms prevented them from being sustained. It is like life in a short space of time and followed by death. The environmental factors were negligible to its inability to sustain life.

The species that existed failed because of adaptations issues and evironmental issues, not so ss far as the assertion of the failed species according to Evolutionists. Where are these Chimeras.

What chimeras? The theory of evoution does not predict them.

 

[The Times]

@Speedwell do you believe that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel had created or purposed a system of failed species?

Did God not say that he created everything perfect to begin with.

 

[The Times]

What chimeras? The theory of evoution does not predict them.

Inevitably they would be an inbetween species, that is a transmutation, if we take Evolution Theory at its assertion that a mineralised rock became a whale and a whale developed legs and walked on land to become a primal man.

 

[Speedwell]

@Speedwell do you believe that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel had created or purposed a system of failed species?

Did God not say that he created everything perfect to begin with.

No, He said He thought it was good. By His standards, of course, which aren't necessarily the same as ours or even known to us.

 

[Speedwell]

Inevitably they would be an inbetween species, that is a transmutation, if we take Evolution Theory at its assertion that a mineralised rock became a whale and a whale developed legs and walked on land to become a primal man.

The theory of evolution makes no such assertion. Where are you learning this stuff?

 

[The Times]

Where are these.....

 

[Speedwell]

Where are these.....

View attachment 209229

In some science fiction movie by the look of it.

 

[The Times]

No, He said He thought it was good. By His standards, of course, which aren't necessarily the same as ours or even known to us.

As you say, because your implied assertion is that our standards are higher than God's standard, right?

 

[pitabread]

I don't particularly agree with their definitions of terms, after much scrutiny.

That's nice. So?

You say, but why. Evolution is a Theory. Why must an Evolution theory be taken on its assertion and any other counter assertion needs to be accompanied by evidence.

A "theory" in science is a well-supported, well-evidenced body of knowledge which explains a particular physical phenomenon; in the case of the Theory of Evolution, it explains the biodiversity of life on Earth.

IOW, the Theory of Evolution is backed up by evidence. That's why it's part of the foundation of the modern biological sciences.

But they were not failed species. They existed and became extinct. We are talking about failed species.

What is a "failed species" then?

 

[pitabread]

Inevitably they would be an inbetween species, that is a transmutation, if we take Evolution Theory at its assertion that a mineralised rock became a whale and a whale developed legs and walked on land to become a primal man.

You claimed you learned about evolution in school, but your posts suggest you slept through those lessons...

 

[Speedwell]

As you say, because your implied assertion is that our standards are higher than God's standard, right?

No. I implied no such thing. I don't even understand how you would reach such a bizarre conclusion.