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.
Something in the ocean decided it wanted to live on land, crawled out of the water and floundered until it finally grew legs
Something in the ocean decided it wanted to live on land, crawled out of the water and floundered until it finally grew legs, ran about for several million years then decided it liked the ocean better after all, jumped back in and splashed around until it lost its legs and finally got the size of a mountain. That makes sense… not. I think sea turtles did the same thing, except they remained turtles for some reason. Hmmm.
No, only that it is a theory... with lots of holes in it, if you allow yourself to see them.
I've never seen anyone point out alleged holes before, at least none that would invalidate the theory.
But if you can do so, please go right ahead.
Dog genes have been manipulated to create many different breeds, but dog DNA hasn’t been changed despite all that manipulation that I know of
and they’re all still dogs
That's the definition of a POE:One never knows whether to take you seriously when you're hyperbolic like that.
Nope.... I thought it was widely recognized that selective dog breeding had created (through manipulation efforts of every kind in observable timeframes) a pretty big hole in TOE and its mutation mechanism.
Evolution doesn't change kinds - any new species is a subspecies of the species from which it derives, never a 'new kind'. Over very long timescales, a sequence of species-level changes might produce a very different end-result from the starting population - still a member of the same clade, but very different.Dog genes have been manipulated to create many different breeds, but dog DNA hasn’t been changed despite all that manipulation that I know of… and they’re all still dogs. So, to me anyway, that begs the question, would one kind ever change into another kind? I think not.
Evolution doesn't change kinds
any new species is a subspecies of the species from which it derives
The terminology isn't well-defined. 'Species' is not a well-defined scientific term.If it's a "new species," then it's not a "subspecies."
Please get the terminology straight.
I think you need to clarify what you are talking about here.In some places hoofed animals can venture into the water, to cool off. To have a wash, to rid themselves of flying pests.
We need large amphibian fossils to confirm your hypothesis.
First, I guess I should define my meaning of hole. Let’s go with ‘gaps in factual representations that require some form of speculation.’ Invalidate TOE, no, but I thought it was widely recognized that selective dog breeding had created (through manipulation efforts of every kind in observable timeframes) a pretty big hole in TOE and its mutation mechanism. Dog genes have been manipulated to create many different breeds, but dog DNA hasn’t been changed despite all that manipulation that I know of… and they’re all still dogs. So, to me anyway, that begs the question, would one kind ever change into another kind? I think not.
Actually, they basically repeated this with foxes. And foxes changed in many of the same way we've seen dogs change.
The Chinese giant salamander has been measured at 5.9 feet in length, versus Pakicetus which ranged from 3-6 feet.
There are several members of the Metoposauridae family that measure better than 3 meters (10 feet long) and at least one that measured around 10 meters (33 feet.
You’re not saying that the selective breeding changes in gene sequence demonstrate how the TOE mutation mechanism can actually bring about a new ‘kind’ (something other than a recognizable dog), are you???Well, obviously the dog DNA has changed: if it hadn't all dogs would look the same.
dittoActually, they basically repeated this with foxes. And foxes changed in many of the same way we've seen dogs change. Friendly Foxes’ Genes Offer Hints to How Dogs Became Domesticated
So that kind of change is certainly not only possible, but actually quite likely.
You’re not saying that the selective breeding changes in gene sequence demonstrate how the TOE mutation mechanism can actually bring about a new ‘kind’ (something other than a recognizable dog), are you???
So, it's a TOE hole (gap in factual representations that require some form of speculation).I'm saying that DNA changes are easy. To get a recognisably different "kind" (as in genus or family) requires quite substantial DNA changes.
Such evolution has been inferred, but never demonstrated. Indeed, it cannot be demonstrated on human timescales (except, perhaps, using computer simulation).
So, it's a TOE hole (gap in factual representations that require some form of speculation).
Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound too argumentative. It’s just that TOE requires so much time that it’s not even close to observable. It can’t be proven or disproven, and yet it is considered absolute by the brightest minds. Does that suggest there’s a lot of evidence that stacks up in its favor… certainly. Where does that leave me? Seeing the reasons to doubt it, still asking questions and thinking maybe that knowledge is and always will be beyond the scope of science, thereby rendering the naturalistic-only view forever questionable, and that God made sure the Genesis ‘God did it’ answer, however so, will always remain an option for any level of education.I'm not arguing. I've already said that the standard of scientific proof in evolutionary biology is far, far lower than in say, chemistry.
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?