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.
A TINY BIT!
You don't bring it into the discussion, but it is what defines your beliefs. You can accept micro evolution. Indeed you must accept micro evolution to explain how we got from just two of the kind feline, to lions, tigers, panthers, etc. However, you do not accept macro evolution because that disagrees with your religious beliefs of creation.
The examples I gave were in response to someone asking about making lots of copies of the same thing.
First off I am not a creationists so you assume what I believe or dont believe. Yes many people accept micro evolution and as you said we see it in the variety of the same animals. There are many cat types, humans have artificially bred many dog types. In the lab we have made many fruit fly variations. But never anything apart form this. Never a fruit fly into a mosquito or a dog into cat type or any indication of steps that will show it is on its way to a cat or another type of animal. What is changed or tampered with is the existing features. A fruit fly wing, eye or antenna is added somewhere else on its body. But never a mosquito or other type eye, wing or antenna or any indication of that feature changing into something else.
No I dont always point to papers that are critical of evolution. I use papers that are questioning Darwinian evolution based on the evidence only and not religion. The evidence is the evidence not because of religion but because that is what is being found by the research. When they sequence the DNA of animals and find a lot of inconsistencies with what the theory of evolution claimed it isn't because they made it up because of their religious beliefs. Or chose to focus on this because they were biased through their beliefs. It was just what came up when they ran the test. So over recent times as techniques have become better and new discoveries have came out they have found many of these things that bring into question what Darwinian evolution claims.
This is the grey area I am talking about. To start with of course they are going to support Darwinian evolution if they believe it happened. But a few years ago many of the same were saying these new discoveries were just minor blips which are caused by other reasons and had an explanation for it to explain it away. Now many are saying that it has more influence than natural selection itself. So it is a continual change of discovery. But not all think that adaptive evolution is what causes major changes in creatures.
I am not sure which creature you have posted the picture of. It looks a bit like Archaeopteryx. The very fact that you post a picture shows that you also fall for the stories that have been made about Dino to bird evolution. You post no credible support for this and observational evidence can be open to interpretation. One of the things that evolution does is look for similarities in fossils to say that this shows that one creature evolved from the other, hence feathers on dinos or similarities in the feet or teeth on the beaks. But they neglect the many contradictory ones some of which show it may be impossible for dinos or at the the theropod’s that they say birds mainly came from to be the links they came from.Ummm again what do you think evolution is? What do you think is so radically different from cat and dog that they couldn't evolve from a bear like animal? WHat feature or limit prevents this kind of transformation?
And it's funny that all these so called assumption you guys want to claim we make, happen to fit what we already know, we knew birds likly evolved from dinosaurs.
guess what we find dinosaurs with wings, feathers, some preserved well enough we can tell their colours. At what point does it stop being a guess work and goes to fully real? How do you see something like this wich is what it looked like right down to it's colours and not say maybe evolution is true? thats dab smack between bird and dinosaur a perfect blend of the two, and this is what evolution predicts.
i can't speak for steve, but my main objection is one of methods.
this is part of the conundrum.
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
Read it, but they don't explain why this rules out birds from being descended from theropods. Basically, the author of this article (as opposed to the author of the paper) is saying that birds have a unique bird specific feature (an abdominal air sac), and fails to address why that couldn't be a subsequent adaption post split. Let's go to the source.
Shaking my head right from the title. All dinosaurs going extinct right when birds emerged isn't theorized by anyone with a brain in their heads and a modicum of education in the subject. It's like saying, "The founding fathers can't have been descended from europeans because they were contemporaries with europeans!"
A little happy accident here. You know how I mentioned that pterodactyls aren't actually dinosaurs? Well, they are talking about a flying lizard that isn't a dinosaur. They suggest that this must mean that birds are descended from the flying lizard rather than dinosaurs, but that's because they are terrible at understanding science. Basically, the idea is this, if anything had feathers before dinosaurs, birds aren't dinosaurs!" Doesn't make much sense, does it? This pushes the origins of feathers back some if it pans out, but doesn't impact bird evolution in the slightest. As a bonus, it happens to be the same scientist as the first one, so I'm going to reverse course and say that article 1's reporter was probably accurately recording some fringe theories by the scientist.
First line: "The discovery of a new bird-like dinosaur from the Jurassic period challenges widely accepted theories on the origin of flight." Flight has actually evolved several times independently. Off the top of my head, bats, birds, insects, and pterodactyls all independently evolved flight. It would not be surprising if there was another lineage to add to that list.
This one isn't about the origins of early birds at all. It's about the timing of features of modern birds 70 million years after Archaeopteryx.
There are essentially two competing concepts for the existence of humans on earth:
