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.
Yeah. It's almost like life is fluid and hard to fit into neat boundaries.
Even though there are different definitions for species, they fall within a range - scientists would agree on the vast majority of classifications as species, and only quibble over a few minor exceptions here and there. The definitions of species are not that different, and under any definition you pick, speciation has occurred.
I am going to have to review the definition of speciation. I still don't see how it is a mechanims for evolution.
The Bible specifically says that everything that wasn't on the Ark - excluding fish and marine animals, of course - died. It very, very explicitly says that, several times, I believe. It's almost as if the writer really wanted to hammer that point home and leave no ambiguity on the matter. It also says that every 'kind' of animal that God created was on there.
Gen 7:23 is sayng that all life that was not in the ark was blotted out. That verse mentions birds and we know that the ark contained ravens and doves.
...yeah. That's my point. The birds that were on the Ark died along with everything else, according to the story. So your contention that something that wasn't on the Ark could have survived is dead from the start. There's no even any Biblical support for it.Gen 7:23 is sayng that all life that was not in the ark was blotted out. That verse mentions birds and we know that the ark contained ravens and doves.
Give me the example of one species that could have survived the flood.
It appears you are confused about the meaning of a scientific theory.
Google "Scientific Theory" for an explanation.
It wouldn't need to. All it needs to be is a self-replicating molecule.
No, they haven't.
Then actually produce something to back up your claim.
In all likelihood, it won't. But to state it's 100% fact is dogma, not science. Just because something CAN change doesn't mean it WILL.
No one ever said it did. It was a hypothetical example.
I am going to have to review the definition of speciation. I still don't see how it is a mechanims for evolution.
Gen 7:23 is sayng that all life that was not in the ark was blotted out. That verse mentions birds and we know that the ark contained ravens and doves.
Since you have no idea wha the fdirst life from was , you have no evidence it had a self-replicating molecule.
What does your opinion have to do with anything?IMO, a self-replicating mocule will not cause DNA.
I gave you some obvious examples and you rejected them.
To say that there is more than 1 blood type has not been scientificlly proven is the dogma in this discussion.
Hypothetical proves nothing.
I can't think of any right off hand, but what species do you think were not in the ark?
Many of them culd have survived the flood
My discussin was not about scientific theory.
He says they don't, I gave him 2 examples of things science has proved
Froggy--
Repeatedly people have given you examples of speciation (species that have split into subspecies and eventually into separate new species ).
Instead of me saying not hey haven't and yo saying yes they have , give me one specific example.
You have rejected them because, supposedly, those examples did not explain how the speciation happened. In most cases the documentation offerred to you does explain how, in the sense that it tells how sub-populations became genetically isolated from one another (usually by distance), and different traits emerge as prominant in each sub-population. That covers the macro-biology (animal behavior, animal husbandry, etc) side of the "how.
Sub populations are the same species.
It has also been explained to you how new alleles, new variations on traits (e.g., a new hair color), and brand new genes, new traits are produced by mutaions (though mutation is not the only source of suc new or altered SNA sequences), which ensuresthat there is always a variety of traits for evolution to work with.
Not true. All anyone has sid is that it happened. There is always a variety of traits but they NEVER result in evolution. No mutation has ever produced a lifeform that was not the same as its parents. Hair color, skin color etc are the result of dominant and recessive genes and mutation are not necessary for them to change in the offspring.
It has also been shown (most recently by me in a post which I quoted again recently --at your request -- and to which you have again decided not to respond) how selection, including Natural Selection chooses certain of those traits to increase (or decrease). Together they cover the micro-biology (genetics, bio-chemistry, etc,) side of the of the "how."
Neither you or anyone else has provided the biological evidence of HOW, natural selection chooses traits. Traits are preprogramed by the genes. If a gene is dominant, the kid will het the traint. If it is recessive, he will not.
So what other "how" is there? What, exactly, are you looking for by way of an answer to your "how" question?
How does naturel selection, even if it is true, cause an A to become a B? Explain the biology that makes it possible.
Neither you or anyone else has provided the biological evidence of HOW, natural selection chooses traits
...yeah. That's my point. The birds that were on the Ark died along with everything else, according to the story. So your contention that something that wasn't on the Ark could have survived is dead from the start. There's no even any Biblical support for it.
All life forms NOT IN THE ARK were destroyed. The Bible says Noah sent out doves and a raven. The did not die and neither did any other bird in the ark.
It actually is, you just don't realize it.
No, you haven't. You gave two examples of something science has provided extensive evidence for. But that's not the same thing as 'proving' them.
I am tired of giving you obvious examples
I am tired of giving you obvious examples. If you dogma will not allow you to see the truth, so be it. Wallow in your ignorance
Instead of me saying not hey haven't and yo saying yes they have , give me one specific example.
Sub populations are the same species.
Not true. All anyone has sid is that it happened. There is always a variety of traits but they NEVER result in evolution. No mutation has ever produced a lifeform that was not the same as its parents. Hair color, skin color etc are the result of dominant and recessive genes and mutation are not necessary for them to change in the offspring.
Neither you or anyone else has provided the biological evidence of HOW, natural selection chooses traits.
Traits are preprogramed by the genes. If a gene is dominant, the kid will het the traint. If it is recessive, he will not.
How does naturel selection, even if it is true, cause an A to become a B? Explain the biology that makes it possible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?