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.
Yea, who could possibly look at the evidence and conclude that species come in nested hierarchies with common ancestors linking the whole thing together...
Clearly God just had a fondness for finches, right?
Um, if this life died out before the Cambrian, then you're claiming that the Cambrian forms magically appeared out of the dirt? That's positively absurd. And it's amazing how you simply ignore any evidence that doesn't suit your preconceived notions.
The point is that life had died out 20 million years prior to the Cambrian explosion.
Err... I did concede the point, inasmuch as it's a no-brainer. That doesn't seem to be what you and him are talking about, though - rather, you're debating the importance of the Cambrian Explosion. I'm with Chalnoth when he says modern phyla existed prior to the Cambrian, and that it's importance is limited to the evolution of body parts that more readily fossilise - little more.
It's a semantic point as to whether Darwin's original proposition has been superseded or simply refined, but his core ideas are very much intact. The minor details have certainly been improved upon, but the main assertion (the universal ancestry of life, etc) are as solid as ever.
In my opinion, we have a new, modern theory that is broadly identicle to Darwin's, but is ultimately different in its particulars. In another's opinion, this could simply be Darwin's original theory in a more refined form, similar to how quantum mechanics has been refined over the past 50 years - but is still quantum mechanics.
Not that this quibble has any relevance whatsoever.
What are you talking about it? Finches remain finches.
Evidence please.
Loudmouth, please look at the thread. I have provided the sources for all my information.
You should know better than to post this tripe. No organism becomes a completely different form from its ancestors. It just becomes a new, specific variant of its ancestors.
And it is proof positive of macroevolution because it is the evolution of a new structure in the body, one that did not exist in the lizard's ancestors.
So how did we evolve from a mammalian reptile?
No you aren't. You just said that these forms died out before the Cambrian began. Prove it.
Um, that was a rather long process, with many steps along the way. See here:So how did we evolve from a mammalian reptile?
Yeah, I didn't see any sources that remotely supported that rather absurd notion that all life died out before the Cambrian. Heck, I don't even see how we could obtain evidence of that happening, because as Loudmouth noted, the fossil record is incomplete.I did. I provided sources when I made the claim.
Apes remain apes, and yet you argue against humans sharing common ancestry with chimps. Mammals remain mammals, and yet you argue against humans and bears sharing a common ancestor. Vertebrates remain vertebrates, and yet you argue against humans and fish sharing a common ancestor. Need I go on?
The working theory is still identical to Darwin's original idea. The theory states that we evolved through many steps, all of which were guided by natural selection acting on variation. Also, this process produced a nested hierarchy.
Um, that was a rather long process, with many steps along the way. See here:
Evolution of mammals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I believe in the universal design of all living things. I don't believe that there is conclusive evidence to support that humans evolved from chimps.
I don't even think that there is conclusive evidence that all mammals evolved from ostracoderms.
God said that life began in the sea.
I just don't think that evolution explains the diversity and mechanisms that are needed for life as we know it.
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?