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.
That is YOU not understanding. You not being able to grasp scientific concepts is YOUR failing; no one else's.Many times scientists make it sound as if these are facts and not theories.
A statement that nearly all biologists would agree with, and one that does absolutely nothing to support your rejection of macroevolution.While evolution is supported by substantial evidence, certain aspects, particularly regarding the origin of life and specific evolutionary mechanisms, remain unproven or not fully understood. Ongoing research continues to explore these areas.
Just to be clear: you obviously know next to nothing about macroevolution, the evidence for it, and why the vast majority of scientists accept it. But you're still sure that it's a joke.Microevolution yes; macroevolution a joke
You still refuse to post an actual real world example.Isn't it obvious - macroevolution, the theory of evolution, darwinism.
I would ask you to post an actual example but your track record indicates you won't.Alot of scientist put a fit up when schools teach, in addition to evolution, alternate thoughts on the origin of life.
Seriously? You actually think scientific theories become absolute fact? FYI this sort of ignorance is why so many different people here have been practically begging you to go learn some basic science.If the theory of evolution were absolute fact
As long as you keep refusing to post any real world examples I see no reason to take anything you post seriously.then we wouldn't have to say there are alternate thoughts on the origin of life but evolution is just a theory (though many scientists defend it like it's the gospel truth on everything.
Plus alot of thoughts on many space topics - dark matter, the galaxy at the furtherest reaches of the universe, dark energy, black holes. Many times scientists make it sound as if these are facts and not theories.
Make up your mind already? Do you want to be spoon fed the children's version or learn how scientists actually view evolution? I'll happily provide any number of technical papers if you want to see how scientists actually study evolution.I have to say this video is a joke and very simplistic and if this is how bio chemists, biologists, paleontologists and evolutionist view evolution...
I saw a term that was new to me late last year that I can't help but think of when interacting with creationists: motivated ignorance.That is YOU not understanding. You not being able to grasp scientific concepts is YOUR failing; no one else's.
Good grief, man. Post a link to a video if you want anyone to see it. No one in their right mind is going to click a random search link from someone else with embedded trackers.I have to say this video is a joke and very simplistic and if this is how bio chemists, biologists, paleontologists and evolutionist view evolution...
Earlier he was complaining that scientists don't dumb it all down and now he's complaining about the dumbed-down material?Make up your mind already? Do you want to be spoon fed the children's version or learn how scientists actually view evolution? I'll happily provide any number of technical papers if you want to see how scientists actually study evolution.
Why would that matter? The predicted transitionals were there, where evolutionary theory predicted they would be.
Perhaps you don't know what "macroevolution" is. We have directly observed instances of macroevolution.Microevolution yes; macroevolution a joke
Even I don't get why AV uses "After how many tries?" as gotcha response.
We have directly observed instances of macroevolution.
They lied to you about that...Only on paper.
Because between those tries, it's back to the drawing board to readjust their search options until they get it right.
Then they make it sound as if it was a prediction of evolution that led them to it.
What was that animal scientists swore went extinct, until they* "discovered" it?
Didn't they make it sound like it was discovered through conventional evolution models, when in truth, the Inuit (?) Indians were talking about them all the time?
Even eating them for breakfast?
That's probably where they got that information.
From the Indians, not the laboratory.
*
They lied to you about that...
Buddy, you're describing trial and error, which is a foundational thing in anything that requites intelligence. Why is that a bad thing?
This one genuinely has me stumped because I've not got a clue what you could be talking about and I've never heard of anything considered extinct in the wild being rediscovered by Inuits. I imagine it's some sort of seal.
It's what goes on between those trials and errors that I find disingenuous.
If it is any consolation he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about either.This one genuinely has me stumped because I've not got a clue what you could be talking about and I've never heard of anything considered extinct in the wild being rediscovered by Inuits. I imagine it's some sort of seal.
Yes, that's what happened. Scientists predicted that tetrapods evolved in the Devonian, and therefore there should be transitional fish/tetrapod fossils in Devonian strata. Paleontologists went to see, and found numerous transitional species there.Then they make it sound as if it was a prediction of evolution that led them to it.
Omiltemi cottontail rabbit Silvilagus insonus , for example. Lots of animals become so rare as to be missing over years, and are later discovered to still exist. Don't think any biologists swore about it, though. There's quite a list of such species. Would you like to learn about more of them?What was that animal scientists swore went extinct, until they* "discovered" it?
If it is any consolation he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about either.
I fail to understand why you and other posters even bother to respond.
Yes, that's what happened. Scientists predicted that tetrapods evolved in the Devonian, and therefore there should be transitional fish/tetrapod fossils in Devonian strata. Paleontologists went to see, and found numerous transitional species there.
Omiltemi cottontail rabbit Silvilagus insonus , for example. Lots of animals become so rare as to be missing over years, and are later discovered to still exist. Don't think any biologists swore about it, though. There's quite a list of such species. Would you like to learn about more of them?
A lot of YECs erroneously cite coelacanths, but no species from the fossil record is alive today. There are two genera of coelacanths that are deep ocean species which are quite evolved from the freshwater species that lived many millions of years ago.
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?