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.
you only show your ignorence actually. but you are welcome to beleive otherwise.What you think is not important, as you have demonstrated time and again that you have no clue what you are talking about concerning this subject.
See? When you say stuff like this, you only show your ignorance on the topic.
No, you are making up a lie and putting it into the mouths of scientists.in this claim they will claim for "anomaly" and thats it. or for convergent evolution or for unknown geological process etc.
Go ahead, try it.
Find me a non-primate that shares more ERV's with humans then primates.
A single fossil wouldn't be sufficient if there was the likelihood or even possibility of it being misplaced due, for example, to geological processes.in this claim they will claim for "anomaly" and thats it. or for convergent evolution or for unknown geological process etc.
Find me a non-primate that shares more ERV's with humans then primates.
so if we will find that say orangutan shared more ervs with human then human with chimp evolution is false? (because chimp suppose to be colser to human and not orangutan). this is your prediction?
Orangutans are primates...so if we will find that say orangutan shared more ervs with human then human with chimp evolution is false? (because chimp suppose to be colser to human and not orangutan). this is your prediction?
it doesnt matter since chimp suppose to be closer to human. so if we will find such example it will be similar to a case outside primate group (say a dog).ProTip: Orangutans are primates. It may help to actually put the goalposts firmly in the ground somewhere: running about willy-nilly with them must be tiring.
no since you can always claim for unknown geological process or convergent evolution.A single fossil wouldn't be sufficient if there was the likelihood or even possibility of it being misplaced due, for example, to geological processes.
However, an important part of the scientific method is replication - if other examples of this apparently out-of-time creature were found in strata with the same dating at other sites, it would be a serious challenge to evolution.
it doesnt matter since chimp suppose to be closer to human. so if we will find such example it will be similar to a case outside primate group (say a dog).
in this claim they will claim for "anomaly" and thats it.
or for convergent evolution or for unknown geological process etc.
Nope.
Mammals next to trilobites will falsify evolution. There's no way around that.
so if we will find that say orangutan shared more ervs with human then human with chimp evolution is false? (because chimp suppose to be colser to human and not orangutan). this is your prediction?
take a motion system for instance. any motion system need at least several parts to work. so such a system cant evolve stepwise. right?That's a problem for your 'argument'; you can't predict specific results of evolutionary processes, only that each stage has a selective advantage over the previous stage in the environment of its time.
But the main problem for your 'argument' is that cars do not constitute breeding populations...
ok. but its not small steps. you cant just add one part and get it work as a plane engine.Why not? The biggest difference is that aircraft engines are air cooled and automobile engines are water cooled, but there are some automobile engines which are air cooled. Right after WWII an engineer named Preston Tucker was trying to get a car into production. Because of delays in manufacturing engines he actually used war-surplus air cooled aircraft engines in the cars. Made about fifty cars that way and they worked fine.
take a motion system for instance. any motion system need at least several parts to work. so such a system cant evolve stepwise. right?
The point of requiring more than one site would be to make the coincidence of both specimens encountering the same displacement in different contexts unreasonably remote - unless there was evidence supporting coincidental displacement at both sites.no since you can always claim for unknown geological process or convergent evolution.
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?