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.
More curiously, all major stages in organizing animal life's multicellular architecture then occurred in a short period beginning less than 600 million years ago and ending by about 530 million years ago - and the steps within this sequence are also discontinuous and episodic, not gradually accumulative.
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.
well its like..
day 4:
God makes all swiming, creeping and flying things.
You say this means everything between start of life and birds.
Day 5:
god makes land animals and humans.
you say this means all modern life that came after birds.
So im wondering, if a new species of bird shows up in modern times how does that work since all birds were created before hand?
I tried asking him how the Earth coped for 140 million years without a Sun*, but I got no answer...
*Third Day: fruit bearing trees were made. Science says this occurred 140 million years ago. Fourth Day: the Sun is made. Thus, the Sun is only 140 million years old, tops.
So where can we find birds, mammals, reptiles, vertebrate fish, flowering plants, amphibians, lobe finned fish, etc. in the Cambrian?
Is it really that surprising that the ancestors of all modern lineages are found in the Cambrian? Isn't that what we should see if evolution is true?
No, this is something completely contradictory to the evidence. Your assertion was that Genesis is in complete accordance with modern science - but this is not the case.Fruit bearing trees were before the sun. Like I told you then, this is a gap that is not in evidence.
So you look at the natural world and claim that it has to have natural causes, I look at the natural world and see that natural causes can not explain it satisfactorily.
You claim that all macroevolutionary processes are microevolution over long periods of time.
Today with new technologies and new information we know that while this can explain some of the phenomena, it doesn't go across the board.
Is Microevolution distinct from Macroevolution and vice versa? We concluded that this depends very much on what is meant by "distinct" and so forth. All phenomena of microevolution evolution below the species level must necessarily have some effect above the species level. But whether this is an additive effect or not depends on the complexity of the relationships between the two levels in each case. At least some macroevolution is the result of microevolutionary processes. So we are only asking now if all is. This is open to debate: the E (environmental) factors that affect macroevolution are not within-species (Mi) forces, but do microevolutionary processes like gene frequency changes necessarily mediate them? And this question is still unresolved amongst specialists. One thing we can say now, though, is that we cannot draw a simple equals sign between the two domains. It is an open question, one much argued within evolutionary biology and related disciplines, whether Mi = Ma in any sense.
Source
False. Among species that do not participate in horizontal genetic transfer, evolution can not produce violations of a nested hierarchy. Therefore, genetic adaptations that occur in one lineage can not be shuttled over to another lineage. However, a designer could easily do this. In fact, humans do it all of the time through genetic engineering. A perfect example is the Glofish. This fish carries an exact copy of a fluorescent protein from jellyfish allowing it to fluoresce under UV light. If humans can violate the nested hierarchy with ease, why couldn't God?
I can't help but be stunned by this claim. The nested hierarchy pattern made up the foundation of Darwin's theory. It was the light bulb moment for Darwin. In his notebooks you can actually see the moment at which Darwin started forming his idea. It started with this diagram:
See that diagram? It is a nested hierarchy. It formed the foundation for Darwinism, and it still forms the foundation of the modern theory.
But the pattern of shared and derived characteristics IS PREDICTABLE. That pattern is a nested hierarchy.
Actually it would not have "parrot characteristics." According to the ancestor chosen, that would be the characteristics assigned. That's why the oviparous qualities of the platypus are not "bird characteristics" or "fish characteristics" but "reptilian characteristics." Why not birds? Platypus sex is XXXXX-rated - 24 October 2004 - New ScientistIf a species comes from a parrot then that species will have derived parrot characteristics not found in other lineages that were not descended from that parrot. That is the prediction. What is so hard to understand?
Then show me a bat that can be classified as a bird. Show me a bat that has derived features found in any feathered organism that is not found in other mammals.
I know who Stephen Jay Gould is, but I didn't see any peer-reviewed articles being cited.Stephen Gould is a peer-reviewed scientist that has his work in many peer reviewed journals.
That doesn't make him automatically right, or make every word that comes out of his mouth gospel.
I know who Stephen Jay Gould is, but I didn't see any peer-reviewed articles being cited.
Peer-review doesn't mean you do a medical and a body cavity search then you're certified to write whatever you please and be considered an authority.
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.
First of all, there are no species that "do not participate in horizontal gene transfer."
Secondly, the glofish is only a violation of the nested hierarchy due to the fact that you
1. Already drew up your hierarchy.
2. And you observed the transplant.
Jellyfish and fish ultimately share a universal common ancestor in Darwinism and the explanation would be that " "There's no rule that says just because something can change, it will change or must change."
The diagram today is supplemented with arrows depicting HGT.
Where characteristics are similar, one can just create a new node and attach to a given section. Then you say that it is an early transitional.
Reptiles "are characterized by breathing air, laying shelled eggs (except for some vipers and constrictor snakes that give live birth), and having skin covered in scales and/or scutes." A platypus breathes air, it lays shelled eggs, and it has scales.
A lung fish lays eggs, can breathe air, and has scales. Reptile?
2. Bacteria transferred the information into a human. And bacteria transferred the same information into a bird. As you can see there was no direct transmission but it is the same thing.
Actually nothing and everything is predicted.
Actually it would not have "parrot characteristics." According to the ancestor chosen, that would be the characteristics assigned.
If it did then it wouldn't have been referred to as a bat, but a bird.
I'm not sure, let me have a look at my previous post.So are you claiming that there are no peer-reviewed material on the punctuated equilibrium?
Just telling me that he wrote something somewhere that was reviewed by his peers, maybe, isn't evidence. Before there's something for me to refute, you need to support your claim with the peer-reviewed 'documentation' you claimed to have.His views are well known and have been reviewed by his peers and his theory is now an active theory on how evolution works.
If you want to discount what he has said in his work, please provide evidence for what is being claimed by someone of equal stature in the field.
Uhm..Ignoring for a moment the names are not correct.
We still are all of those, we never stopped being them.
we're still 'fish' we're also 'reptile' and 'dino' then finally we added 'ape' to it.
(Keep in mind the names are wrong, but I am too lazy to go look up the proper names right now so I'll use them as placeholders to explain the concept. we sure as heck were never dino's for example xD)
That doesn't make him automatically right, or make every word that comes out of his mouth gospel.
That's not species-level evolution. That's evolution of an entire class. Way to move your goalposts.
And by the way, yes, even mammals still carry the properties of the reptiles they are descended from.
1. That doesn't support your ridiculous claim of absolute extinction.A span of about 30 million years during the Cambrian period is manifested in the fossil record with the sudden appearance of many groups of animals which gave rise to many present day animals. Before the Cambrian period, the fossil record shows no precursors of today's animal groups other than microbes. Rather than being classified in the same group as the mollusks, worms, and brachiopods, scientists are now suggesting that the Orthrozanclus, the halkieriids and the wiwaxiids should be in a unique group of their own.
Source
Another source for you.
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?