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.
And the emergence of new species has been observed and confirmed. You are going to have to fin some other reason to deny evolution.Darwin taught evolution required the emergence of new species. Whether it is emergence or consequence is of little difference. Evolution requires something new not merely an improvement within a species or change within a species. Some will present that as evolution but it is not within the meaning of evolution as taught by Darwinism. Improvement can be adaptation to change and it is not evolutionary.
Absolutely true. I only have an issue with the Zebra offspring becoming some other species.Some questions...
If you think it's wrong, can you tell me which one exactly do you think is incorrect?
- Do you agree that if you have a group of animals - say a herd of zebra - then each individual will be slightly different to the others?
- Do you agree that some of those differences can make it easier for that individual to survive - say, better eyesight so it has a better chance of spotting an approaching predator?
- Do you agree that these differences are due to the genes that the animals have?
- Do you agree that the genes that are responsible for these differences can be passed on to the offspring when that animal reproduces?
- Do you agree that if an animal has some genes that mean it has a difference that helps it survive, this animal is more likely to have more offspring precisely because these differences help it live longer (living longer means more chances to reproduce)?
- Do you agree that if animals with these helpful differences produce more offspring, then the number of animals in the herd that have this helpful difference will tend to increase over the generations?
- Do you agree that if we wait for enough generations to pass, most if not all animals in the herd will have this difference, and what was once different is now normal?
Yes Speedwell, I'm one of them.Suprisingly, that is not true. We still have creationists in this forum who deny the formation of new species. See the next post.
What some fish decides to become an amphibian, then decides to become a tetrapod?Why? What's to stop them?
What are you inferring? A cat will over a million years turn into a dog?Why? What's to stop them?
But why? The emergence of new species is well established. I'll let somebody else argue the science with you. I'm more interested to know why you think you need to deny it.Yes Speedwell, I'm one of them.
I am fully aware of that.It's not something individual creatures decide for themselves.
No, I was asking a question--which after responding to my post three times you have not yet answered.What are you inferring? A cat will over a million years turn into a dog?
What do you mean by "ready to go?"I am fully aware of that.
The idea of species transition to another species is a very strong claim. Considering species appear abruptly and ready to go, in the fossil record.
Because the fossil record denies speciation.But why? The emergence of new species is well established. I'll let somebody else argue the science with you. I'm more interested to know why you think you need to deny it.
Have you seen a trilobite, ready to go.What do you mean by "ready to go?"
Explain the following.What do you mean by "ready to go?"
Neither of those characterisations are reasonable.How then do you account for the victories of WW2 with Germany being superior in almost every measurable way - and the 6 day war with Israel being ridiculously outnumbered and under equipped.
Not a logical possibility. The strongest argument you could make is that the fossil record does not confirm speciation, which leaves the question of why you deny it unanswered.Because the fossil record denies speciation.
Your seeing patterns in morphology that I don't see in the fossil record. There is simply, A, B, C, D, ...Not a logical possibility. The strongest argument you could make is that the fossil record does not confirm speciation, which leaves the question of why you deny it unanswered.
Why deny something that the fossil record merely does not confirm in all cases? Speciation has been observed in living creatures, in some cases has been relatively well confirmed in the fossil record and at the present time there is no credible alternative explanation for the emergence of species. Still, to remain unconvinced of it is not unreasonable. Outright denial requires further information.Your seeing patterns in morphology that I don't see in the fossil record. There is simply, A, B, C, D, ...
Why try to explain something that obviously lacks the fossil evidence to support it?
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?