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.
Why would we? A canine can have cat like habits if that's what it's environment requires. Gray fox are rather cat like in some ways. That is designed into them.Of course there aren't. Dogs didn't evolve into cats (or vise-versa). Thus we would never expect to see a half-dog/half-cat.
In fact finding examples of chimeras like that would be something a designer could do, and not something you'd expect of evolution.
So if life was designed, why don't we see any half-dogs/half-cats?
Know, it is only a bit of anthropomorphization. Natural selection is so obvious that it is almost a tautology. The best adapted (fittest) to a particular environment are the most likely to breed successfully and pass their genes on. That is all that it says, even though Darwin did not understand the concept of genes, he did understand the concept of traits.Lots of false ideas in the world.
Darwin said:
Man selects only for his own good: Nature only for that of the being which she tends.
Doesn't that sound like someone who is making nature a god? How can nature select? Is nature an actual woman with a mind? Of course not. Nature is prone to only chaos unless someone has designed order into it.
If one claims that something is "designed" one takes on a burden of proof. Where is the evidence for design? None has been presented yet.Why would we? A canine can have cat like habits if that's what it's environment requires. Gray fox are rather cat like in some ways. That is designed into them.
If you start with jelly that evolved into something else, every form of animal has to come from another form, so they all can be said to evolve from each other, no matter how many intermediate species you suppose there were.
I trust him. His life’s work is the reason we have such a robust theory at this point in time. Certainly one of the most important persons from the nineteenth century.But doesn't the idea count for something. I mean if darwin got the idea shouldn't it be enough for rest of the world to trust his thoughts? He didn't have to prove it. I can't believe why people still don't trust him.
A computer is not alive. Does that need to be explained?No, the fact they appear in nature shows that someone designed the natural world. Chance cannot create the computer in front of you and it certainly can't create the endless complexity found in this world.
From you own post! So their hypothesis only works if magic is real.The authors note that the “main argument against a unique origin is that the nucleotide
diversity of human DNA data seems too high in order make a single founding couple
possible.” But they argue it is possible that humans are descended from an initial couple
if “they were created with genetic diversity in their autosomal and X-chromosome
DNA.”
Why would we? A canine can have cat like habits if that's what it's environment requires. Gray fox are rather cat like in some ways. That is designed into them.
If you start with jelly that evolved into something else, every form of animal has to come from another form, so they all can be said to evolve from each other, no matter how many intermediate species you suppose there were.
You have to get from the Goop to a human being. So, how can there be no change in kind? In your theory a human would have to belong to every group, from fish to reptile to mammals and so on.And saying "evolved into something else" is incorrect and not what the theory of evolution tells us. New traits arise through the process of variation and natural selection. There is no "change of kind". That is a creationist strawman. One never stops belonging to a group that one evolved from. Understanding cladistics is very important in understanding evolution. Today classification is done by cladisitics. It is how we now understand that we are still apes. "Evolution from apes to human" is incorrect because we never stopped being apes. If one looks at even the fossils that we have, and there are enough that we can see the evolution from what creationists would call "from ape to human" there is no clear cut boundary where one can say "this is an ape and this is a human". In fact creationists have been known to reclassify fossils from "100% ape" to "100% human". By doing so one could claim that the discovery of the 'missing link' has been done by creationists themselves.
Lol, you can't get there from here then. You can't get from A to Z without going through BCDEIF and G.
You have to get from the Goop to a human being. So, how can there be no change in kind? In your theory a human would have to belong to every group, from fish to reptile to mammals and so on.
So, there was, what? A giant leap forward or sideways in genetics and the common ancestor's descendants were suddenly two entirely different kinds?Dogs and cats, for example, share a common ancestor. But that doesn't mean one evolved from the other (or vise versa).
"Eugenicists felt that they were able to justify prejudiced and immoral actions under Darwin’s theories (Wiker, 2000). The segregation, sterilization, and murder of various groups was justified by some as being done for the greater good of evolution - those groups were considered to be ‘less fit’, and by preventing their reproduction, advocates argued that the human race would improve and evolve into a better species. The theory of evolution helped support explanations that defended these actions as necessary to ensure that human progress continued (Wiker, 2000). The most well-known consequences of this line of thinking were in Nazi Germany, when Russians, Jews, and those with mental or physical disabilities (among other groups) were sterilized, imprisoned and murdered."Did you hit your head?
Yeah, and Newton didn't believe in the Trinity. So?"Eugenicists felt that they were able to justify prejudiced and immoral actions under Darwin’s theories (Wiker, 2000). The segregation, sterilization, and murder of various groups was justified by some as being done for the greater good of evolution - those groups were considered to be ‘less fit’, and by preventing their reproduction, advocates argued that the human race would improve and evolve into a better species. The theory of evolution helped support explanations that defended these actions as necessary to ensure that human progress continued (Wiker, 2000). The most well-known consequences of this line of thinking were in Nazi Germany, when Russians, Jews, and those with mental or physical disabilities (among other groups) were sterilized, imprisoned and murdered."
"Darwin’s own opinion about eugenics is controversial. He published The Descent of Man in 1871. In it, he argues that racial extermination has brought human evolution to where it is today (Darwin, 1871). Darwin suggests that Caucasians were superior to other races, particularly Africans and Aboriginal Australians. He also discusses adversity, and how struggle is a key part of natural selection."
This is actually hilarious. A random process, generated by nothing is constrained?The reason we would is because a designer isn't constrained by genetic inheritance the same way the process of evolution is.
The point, buddy, is that geniuses in one area aren't geniuses in all areas. Darwin was right about evolution; to the extent he was an advocate of eugenics, he was wrong. So?Wow, yeah, not believing in the trinity is on the same level as endorsing wiping out entire races of humans, you got me there.
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?