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.
I believe in evolution;
But I don't believe it happens the way they sell it and animate it.
I bring Dawkins into play for you to show you I have already read into decent arguments.
If google brought me the answers, then why am I here
I believe in evolution;
But I don't believe it happens the way they sell it and animate it.
I bring Dawkins into play for you to show you I have already read into decent arguments.
If google brought me the answers, then why am I here
Please explain what would contribute to such an event.
And why such present day oxygenation was not the same back then for life to stop diversifying?
And does this mean by increasing oxygenation, we can evolve ourselves?
Yeah, it's a great thing. I will not deny the facts here.
But isn't that applicable on virusses and bacteria?
The observations lead to no absolute answer.
Those phylogenies have their limitations and one is never sure how accurate they turn out to be in 20 years from now.
I believe in evolution;
But I don't believe it happens the way they sell it and animate it.
I bring Dawkins into play for you to show you I have already read into decent arguments.
If google brought me the answers, then why am I here
Then how does you view on how evolution occurs differ from how they are selling it?
Ultimately, there is no way to measure whether a particular phylogenetic hypothesis is accurate or not, unless the true relationships among the taxa being examined are already known (which may happen with bacteria or viruses under laboratory conditions). The best result an empirical phylogeneticist can hope to attain is a tree with branches that are well supported by the available evidence. Several potential pitfalls have been identified:
I keep it on a big "I don't know" but I find it hard to believe insects grow wings out of their gills etc. The observations are what they are and how many tiktaaliks have they found? Take Lucy, they animate up to 60% based on footprints which might not have been Lucy's foot. They have no hands but they reconstruct it based on what fragments?
We pass on DNA yes, and how do we compare our own DNA with a tiktaalik? Or a rodent? Or an aegyptopithecus? That's impossible..
But we see not what they animate in the fossilrecord.
No. It's applicable to any DNA based life form. Phylogenetics is the study of evolutionary relationships among groups of organisms by looking at the hierarchical patterns of DNA.
As you know, DNA is inheritable. It also mutates. Based on these two facts, we can literally construct a family tree of life simply by looking at genomes and comparing them.
Not only that, but this tree can also be obtained by other area's of study - independent from one another.
We can draw it based on the fossil record.
We can draw it based on comparative anatomy.
We can draw it based on the geographic distribution of species.
We can draw it based on the genetic record.
And they always result in the same tree.
To me, this is what makes evolutionary history absolutely undeniable. This evidence is so strong, so consistent, so overwhelming that it makes me call evolution nothing short of a fact.
That's nice, but your comments about phylogenies tell me that you didn't understand much of it.
Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The above is a tree of life, automatically generated based on completely sequenced genomes. It fits the predictions of evolution like a glove.
You can map the distribution of species on there and you'll see that that also fits like a glove. You can map trees from comparative anatomy on there and you'll get the same result.
You can even take single genes or DNA sequences and track them down and they'll follow what you see on that map. Like we can indeed do with ERV's.
You'll share more ERV's with chimps then with gorilla's. More with gorilla's then with oerang oetangs. More with oerang oetangs then with lions.
No, actually you can't. You have to assume this so-called "family tree" is real in the first place.
You have to assume this so-called "family tree" is real in the first place.
Really then explain to me: why don't you expect humans sharing more ERV's with gorillas than chimps due to incomplete lineage sorting in primate lineages? I'd love to hear this one...
Solomon already did all that and concluded ...That is the significance to Lucy. She did not walk perfectly erect but she walked erect more than she waked bent over. If you compare her hip bones to a chimps and ours you will see that hers are a bit closer to ours than to the chimps.
Solomon already did all that and concluded ...
Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
Notice he calls evolution an "invention"? not a discovery?
Solomon already did all that and concluded ...
Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
Notice he calls evolution an "invention"? not a "discovery"?
So we can look at your DNA for paternal markers to know "who's the daddy?" but we can't do the same for similar shared markers across separate species?
The Phylogenetic Tree's show H. Sapiens are more closely related to Chimpanzee's than Gorilla's, thus we share more ERV's with Chimpanzee's as our common ancestor was more recent.
Oh yes, the old "There is only one Lucy" fallacy. While it is true that there is only one "Lucy" since she was an individual she is not the only Australopithecus afarensis ever found. She was not even the first. She is significant because she was the first one found that was complete enough so that we could tell from her hip-bones that she walked erect. That is the significance to Lucy. She did not walk perfectly erect but she walked erect more than she waked bent over. If you compare her hip bones to a chimps and ours you will see that hers are a bit closer to ours than to the chimps.
And as I said she was not the last one found. Her feet were originally based on the deduction that they should be somewhere between the feet of our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, and ours. Later finds showed this to be correct. They were quite close in their estimation. So close that there is no need to change the feet of various exhibitions of what Lucy would have looked like.
Ok, so you disagree with 99% of the biologists who are a member of the national academy of sciences, who forget more about evolution than anyone on this board with ever know.
Fine, you must have your reasons why you disagree. But, if you disagree with how the TOE claims events happen, how can you also say you believe in evolution? Do you have an alternate theory of evolution you believe in, that we are not aware of?
Lastly, I am a firm believer that people learn best when they research on their own. Boatloads of information available online from credible sources that could address any question you may have and you would be learning on your own and not from people you may have bias for or against on this board, because of ideology.
I keep it on a big "I don't know" but I find it hard to believe insects grow wings out of their gills etc. The observations are what they are and how many tiktaaliks have they found? Take Lucy, they animate up to 60% based on footprints which might not have been Lucy's foot. They have no hands but they reconstruct it based on what fragments?
@Bshmte, I will address you later on;
@Dogmahunter, likewise. But the google answer you gave wasn't exactly hitting it on the nail.
This is research in its babyshoes... We pass on DNA yes, and how do we compare our own DNA with a tiktaalik? Or a rodent? Or an aegyptopithecus? That's impossible. I can see evolution in our own family tree of humanoids, but that's less then 10 million years!
This comes from your wikipedia link:
What is known between us and extinct species???
We see what evolution can do in great periods of times, but we also see what i can do in short period of times. But we see not what they animate in the fossilrecord.
Anyhow, I will get back to it later.
Here is the post where you complained about the reconstruction of Lucy's foot. I explained how they did it and why and that they were found to be correct by later fossils. Your complaint amounted to the "only one Lucy" fallacy.
And creationists keep forgetting that evolution is considered a proven fact in the world of science. Lucy only answered some of the questions of HOW we evolved, not IF we evolved.
Let's compare this to a trip from New York to Los Angeles. Lucy simply helps to answer what road we used to enter Los Angeles.
And on Tiktallik. You keep forgetting that evolution is a done deal
Let's go back to our New York to Los Angeles analogy. Tiktallik simply helps us to learn how "entered California". We already know that we took the journey.
Keeping with the analogy of the road trip. Your assertion of creationism is similar to saying that we made the trip by magic from New York to L.A.. We say, no we drove there. We have evidence from stops all along the route. We can show the route that others took to cities on the west coast starting at New York. All that the fossil record is doing at this point in time is refining our picture of the route that we took.
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?