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.
The nested hierarchy was actually around a long time prior to ToE.
I know what your beliefs are. I am asking for evidence, not beliefs.
I think many biologists would agree, however that doesn't change the theory that mammals evolved from reptiles. There are many fossil intermediates that have a mixture of reptilian and mammalian features, most notably transitionals that have bones acting as both jaw and middle ear bones, the exact transitionals that we would expect to see. Whether a specific clade is directly ancestral is always up for debate.
Actually, the Bible says that.
Again, I understand what your beliefs are. I am more interested in the evidence that backs your claims. You do understand the difference between beliefs and evidence, do you not?
Well, humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are a modern species. They are our cousins, not our ancestors.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.
Um, it also says in the Bible that the fish and the birds were created at the same time, which is patently false. It also says that the other animals were created after men, which disagrees with the earlier statement, and is also patently false. No matter how you slice it, the creation account laid down in the first few chapters of Genesis does not describe reality.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.
Um, the evidence of precursors to Cambrian forms in the pre-Cambrian. You're just trying to wave it away with your mythical extinction of all life.
Yes. The theory of evolution explains why there is a nested hierarchy.
Well, humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are a modern species. They are our cousins, not our ancestors.
Um, it also says in the Bible that the fish and the birds were created at the same time, which is patently false. It also says that the other animals were created after men, which disagrees with the earlier statement, and is also patently false. No matter how you slice it, the creation account laid down in the first few chapters of Genesis does not describe reality.
Yes, I know. I misspoke I know it is some unknown African ape ancestory.
It doesn't say that animals were created after man. I don't know where you get this stuff. I gave you the run down on this. Birds were the last thing listed prior to the current time period.
I'm saying they are non plausible BECAUSE evolution is most likely true.So I have been saying evolution relies on a plethora of non plausible scenarios to keep it alive and you agree with me. Thanks
1. This isn't an extinction of all life. It's an apparent extinction of some life. And your source isn't a scientific source anyway.I've provided data that says this and yet you refuse to believe it. HUM???
Nope. It doesn't explain it, because it isn't a necessary consequence. A theory can only explain something if that something necessarily follows from the theory and other possibilities are excluded. You can't exclude other possibilities when you invoke a god, because a god could do whatever it wanted.So do families of consciousness in Creationism. It also explains why we can use a nested hierarchy as this requires a general cessation of the creative process. Adaptation, being intelligent, disabling the necessity of a long-term wait.
And birds were very late to arrive on the scene relative to most land animal groups, being even younger than mammals. So on no account does this remotely work.It doesn't say that animals were created after man. I don't know where you get this stuff. I gave you the run down on this. Birds were the last thing listed prior to the current time period.
18The LORD God said, "It isn't good for the man to live alone. I need to make a suitable partner for him." 19-20So the LORD took some soil and made animals and birds. He brought them to the man to see what names he would give each of them. Then the man named the tame animals and the birds and the wild animals. That's how they got their names.
None of these was the right kind of partner for the man.
Nope. It doesn't explain it, because it isn't a necessary consequence. A theory can only explain something if that something necessarily follows from the theory and other possibilities are excluded. You can't exclude other possibilities when you invoke a god, because a god could do whatever it wanted.
*sigh* No, not remotely. Darwinian mechanisms cannot produce any organization of organisms other than a nested hierarchy. Evolution cannot produce an animal with both mammary glands and feathers, for instance. It cannot produce an animal with a cephalapod eye and a spine.Darwinian mechanisms could do whatever it wanted.
No, I mean nested hierarchy. The distinction you are claiming is about power/algorithmic structures and has basically nothing to do with biology.For the purpose of this discussion I will assume that by hierarchy you mean a holarchy. They are generally the same but slightly different and you people seem to jump freely between the two without notice.
Of course they do. Who says they should become anything else? If they did become anything else, then evolution would be disproven. My point, which you seems to have flown over your head, is that common ancestry and nested hierarchies are indeed supported by the evidence (contrary to Astridhere's post). No one said anything about finches becoming non-finches - something that evolution prohibits.What are you talking about it? Finches remain finches.
1. This isn't an extinction of all life. It's an apparent extinction of some life. And your source isn't a scientific source anyway.
2. The fossil record is incomplete, so it is very difficult to demonstrate extinction. That is doubly-difficult when none of the organisms have hard shells and so don't preserve well.
3. An extinction of some life, even most, would be expected with the advent of eyes, which would allow serious predation.
Try finding a peer-reviewed article, or at least something that (honestly) links to peer-reviewed articles for support. That would be a scientific source.What? Both are scientific sources. Stephen Gould was one of Science's top Paleontologist. The other is a educational site http://www.ccsf.edu/Departments/History_of_Time_and_Life/PDFs/EdiacaranGarden36x36.pdf
You haven't supported this claim yet.That was a good story in Darwin's time but not now. There was no fossil evidence for 20 million years Chalnoth.
Um, yes there is. It's called the life we see in the Cambrian.What do you tell me...empirical evidence is all that matters and if you can't deliver it then it doesn't matter at all. There is no evidence that any...any life survived from the precambrian. There was a 20 million year gap between those life forms and the Cambrian Fauna. Could be and maybe are not evidence.
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?