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.
You might make that claim, but even the dimmest evolutionary biologist would know better.why it will be a problem for evolution? we can claim for convergent evolution (mammals evolved twice) or something else.
Technically she (and AL-288-1 is not the only specimen of Au. afarensis) is. But then you know that already.. No one even explore the possibility it might be a transitional chimpanzee, that won't get you written about in National Geographic.
so if we will find first cars, then a commercial cars, and then a trucks in a specific order we should conclude that those vehicles evolved from each other?
its doesnt matter. even if they was able to reproduce its will not prove any evolution but design. so the point i have made is valid.
Why are you having such trouble comprehending that vehicles don't reproduce or pass on their genetic material to offspring and thus aren't analogous to living beings?
why it will be a problem for evolution? we can claim for convergent evolution (mammals evolved twice) or something else.
you see how easy is it for evolution? even if its was a true bird (dating about 60 my before the suppose first bird) it will not fallsified evolution. the same for mammal from the jurassic.
first: as i showed: a lots of suppose missing links arent in the correct place. and secondly: we can find a lots of missing links also in designed objects. but again: its doesnt prove any evolution.
That's exactly what she was (a chimpanzee - from before), but because she was female she was a little smaller then the mean average.
People say this becasue they can't explain it either.All this does is how that you don't understand what the science behind the theory of evolution says.
Convergent evolution is when the same species develops the same adaption at different times and or in different places. The arctic cod for instance developed a gene that creates an antifreeze protein and this coevolved at least four times.
Convergent evolution is when the same species develops the same adaption at different times and or in different places. The arctic cod for instance developed a gene that creates an antifreeze protein and this coevolved at least four times.
People say this becasue they can't explain it either.
While question begging can be mildly abrasive and intimidating for the misinformed, I know Lucy has a chimpanzee skull. Pedantic references to random anatomical terms won't change that. She was never more the a knuckle dragging tree dwelling ape.Um, no. First, it's obvious to anyone familiar with hominid anatomy that A. afarensis isn't a chimpanzee. Many features of the feet, pelvis, etc, show that. Would you like to admit you wrong and move towards being right, or dance around that for a while?
Lucy's skull was in pieces as I recall but nearly complete, there is little question with regards to this being an ape. With a gracias skull in Africa it's a chimpanzee, possibly antideluvian.Secondly, you can't say anything about her brain capacity compared to chimps or other Aas because the "Lucy" skeleton did not include an intact skull. She may have well been above the mean average. (mean = average, so "mean average" is redundant). We know the brain size of Aas due to other fossils. Speaking of that, you know that there well over a dozen other Aa fossils, not just the one called "Lucy", right?
Thirdly, we know why we find human ancestors and not chimp ancestors - and that's because chimps stayed in the forest, where fossilization is much more rare. Several of us have told you this over the years mark. You know this - yet you keep bringing up the idea that the human ancestor fossils we find are devolving back on their way to chimps or something weird like that.
I'm not sure I'll have time to get to all the other things wrong in recent posts. Maybe others will.
What are you talking about? That's a prime example of convergent evolution. A complete de novo (brand new) protein coding gene evolved at least four different times with the exact same effect.Or simply the same designed gene turning on or off as needed.
Super design. Not random mud slinging.
Can genes be turned on and off in cells? - Genetics Home Reference
Just a mammal? Maybe not, but if it was from a modern species, like our own, it most certainly would.so a mammal from a 300 my old layer will not falsified evolution. therefore evolution isnt a scientific theory.
Again I have no idea what you are talking about. I brought up genetic divergence and hominid fossils. I don't anything about a 300 my fossil bed. As a matter of fact I was specifically making reference to arctic codsso a mammal from a 300 my old layer will not falsified evolution. therefore evolution isnt a scientific theory.
What are you talking about? That's a prime example of convergent evolution. A complete de novo (brand new) protein coding gene evolved at least four different times with the exact same effect.
Look up arctic cod antifreeze gene.
Ahhhhh the inevitable ad hominem gauntlet. You guys cave so easy
You REALLY need to stop calling in an ad hominem when people disagree with you on things.
And there you just did it again. Fallacies are illogical because there is no substantive point of reference. The subject (me) is wrong, not why, just wrong. Being an evolutionist doesnt make you intellectually superior based solely on the other person being a creationist. You pontificate the meaning of a latin expression without any reference to the word or its meaning. A classic ad homined taunt.e way you keep using that term consistently and obviously shows that you don't understand it's usage.
Actually the way it works is, Speedwell is wrong...argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
"Speedwell is a Bible-hating Anglican" is merely an insult, not an ad hominem.
"Speedwell's argument wrong because it is illogical and he is a Bible-hating Anglican" is a refutation followed by an insult, not an ad hominem.
"Speedwell's argument is wrong because he is a Bible-hating Anglican" is an ad hominem.
Why are you having such trouble comprehending that vehicles don't reproduce or pass on their genetic material to offspring and thus aren't analogous to living beings?
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?