WHAT???? How the hell did you twist that out of what I wrote? I don't think this is true (and never said it) or even somehow relevant. You twist so badly you give a bad rep to Chubby Checker.
Upvote
0
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.
Tell me exactly how a BONE can be stimulated by the parasympathetic nervous system?
its like saying that if you will find a car made from organic components and had a self-replicating system, how could you tell it was a car?If you saw a walking creature made from organic components and had a self-replicating system, how could you tell it was a robot?
And you have observed this divergence far enough to become definitive with anything? How long is a long time, after we are all dead and gone so no one can prove anything? Is this another one of those ad hoc assumptions we are to take for granted even if never observed?
Dogs if left to natural occurrences like famine, etc instead of man interfering would have encompassed hundreds of millions of years to produce but a few breeds, but in the end would still be the same species.
And yet despite your claim Darwin specifically states in his books that he classified them as separate species based upon the belief they were reproductively isolated. It is that which he believed led to different beaks and separate species.
Must we now go to the definition of speciation to see how it supposedly occurs?
Your understand wrong, it is not that they cannot it is that they do not (there are many reasons for this within sub-species of other animals as well)
.All observations in nature and as tested and performed in labs show that speciation ONLY produces different varieties (sub species) of the same creature!
Go with the real observable test demonstrated evidence on this one...
Oh sorry, it actually requires you look at the claimed dates and do some math.Would you care to quote the part that says that please? I can't find it.
Your last three or four posts have been spot on...good job! Yes they blur and even change definitions as convenient and never can simply say "Sorry! I guess we were wr-wr-wr-wrong...!"
Possibly human, ape, ape.No.
I asked the creationist (non)expert whether or not they were humans or apes.
All based upon external features, but we know external features are no indicator of species. I could take a young ape skull, which is almost human like, lacking the connectors older apes have, and an artist if told it was a human would draw it up and put clothes on it looking just like a man based upon how old I said it was. The next artist if I told them ape, would then draw it apelike.Apparently, neither of you can draw your own conclusions without seeing what the evo said first, and then only to argue the opposite.
Why not, you claim when yours aren’t answered it’s diverting.I was unaware than actually answering each point a creationist makes would be considered diverting.
Self conflicted often?Then again, since you and most creationists have a distinct tendency to ignore most of what other people write, I can see how this level of integrity is troublesome.
Yes I can interpret it. Fantasy, because as soon as you get to every single branching, the common ancestor will be missing. Instead we will see one distinct species separated from another distinct species. The two only joined by this non-existent common ancestor. Then you’ll claim lack of fossils, even if we have those after the claimed split on either branch and those before the split, but never the species that actually split so the theory can be tested.But as I am being accused of going off-topic for replying to what a creationist wrote, how about this - can YOU interpret this cladogram:
You do, afterall, write a lot about such things and portray yourself as having sufficient knowledge of them and the methods that produce them to dismiss and mischaracterize it all.
What is your explanation for why they have middle eastern genomes?WHY???
Assertions are for losers - let us see your rationale and supporting evidence.
WHY would you expect the offspring of a breeding pair with perfect middle eastern genomes to take on Asian, African, Nordic, etc. features over a few hundred generations?
What is your EXPLANATION for why you expect this?
I don’t think you do, or you would understand that mating produced over 100 breeds of dog from an imperfect wolf genome.And unlike you, I understand WHY closely related things have differing appearances.
Answered.You still cannot explain where the Asian and African came from in the first place if your assertion that new variation only comes from hybridization has merit.
You keep running away from that like a frightened child... for some reason...
I also notice that you could not tell which skull was 'fully human' and which was 'fully ape' despite pretending to know.
Oh sorry, it actually requires you look at the claimed dates and do some math.
You’ve had it handed to you countless times.As I said in the OP, these people tap dance around and avoid answering anything that goes against their belief system. I doubt very much you will receive a fully evidenced reply.
Merry Christmas!Not all events must be observed in order to be known.
For example, by only observing the circumstantial evidence exhibited in this picture:
* pic *
We can conclude that it burned there. We don't need to actually observe the fire raging, to know that.
You said ALL of them. Ever heard of a widow's peak? Much more common in Caucasian people, and it is a dominant gene (it's a feature of the hair line, a bit subtle but it is when it points down towards the middle of the forehead). Skin color genes have incomplete dominance, so children of people with drastically different skin tones are usually an intermediate color. Nose shape and cheekbone structure are variable in terms of inheritance. In fact, I can think of only 2 traits I'd associate as "African" that are inherited in an outright dominant fashion (air quotes because so many different groups have these traits): curly hair and brown eyes.And yet do a google search on african and Caucasian babies. Look for yourself which features dominate.
lol, I did read the Wiki, because something Wikipedia is really good for is as a source for other sources. I was actually being cheeky a bit with the dog breed I chose, because I have been telling you, dog breeds are not a good standard for degrees of difference. They are entirely arbitrary.Might have done you some good.
I'm... not? Since when do you think as much?Keep ignoring the reality that all dogs come from wolves.
I'm not going to look through every dog breed to find out, but I bet Swiss herding dogs, such as the Greater Swiss Mountain dog, would benefit greatly from being able to scale rocky, mountainous terrain.And of those, how many were bred to climb cliff faces after birds? One?
Assuming that all of them have fossilized. Furthermore, did you even read your own quote? Here, I'll bold the part you should have taken notice of. So... why do you think the fossil record should be complete again?Can, just grabbed the first one that popped up. But here, let’s show how wrong you are since you insist on not checking your facts before opening your mouth.
How many fossils have been found? (Page 1) - Fossils - Ask a Biologist Q&A
“In terms of the number of individual fossils there are probably countless billions. Most large Natural History Museums will have a collection of several million.”
Except they estimate they’ve found about all the genus.
Will we ever run out of dinosaur bones?
“Using a statistical technique known as the abundance-based coverage estimator, scientists estimate that in the 165-million-year period that dinosaurs roamed the Earth, there were some 1,844 different genera, from carnivorous dinosaurs like the Velociraptor to herbivores like the Stegosaurus. Since humans started searching for dinosaur bones in 1824, it's estimated that we've found remnants from 29 percent of these types, mostly in the last 20 years (a jump largely attributable to increased manpower and discoveries in Argentina and China). If we keep at the current pace of new discovery, it's likely that we'll hit something like "peak dinosaur," with 50 percent of all dinosaur genera discovered, by 2037. Within the next 100 to 140 years, we will have found 90 percent.”
That's pretty presumptuous. The not finding transitional fossil part, that is.I’ll still be alive in 2037 and we still won’t have found transitional or common ancestors.
There, I fixed that for you.You got no transitional fossils. Present away, every single one will be human or nonhuman.
Why wouldn't I want to put my best foot forward instead? Want to talk about the strongest evidence for evolution? Because it isn't fossils.Then present your best go-to and let’s get it done already....
XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD What do I have to be scared of? The idea of evolution being disproven interests me. I like it when mainstream theories are challenged.If your scared and just want to make claims, just say so.
What's this thing? http://occupyilluminati.com/wp-content/plugins/rss-poster/cache/19ed3_oe52d223a8.jpgAnd yet when it comes down to the nitty gritty all you’ll do is show me humans, whales and horses. Never will you show me a single common ancestor that split to become ape and man. Lots of apes, lots of men, but zilch on the common ancestor.
Claims of what?Back it up, produce it, you are being called out on your claims...
No, but I do get tired of my ADHD causing me to misread things from time to time. I sincerely did read the Wiki and some of the sources it links, but I am human after all. Regardless, the Chinook is your safe space of using dog breeds when you have yet to justify even using dog breeds as a standard by which to measure differences in populations and how they arise.You didn’t look up anything.
Ever get tired of not doing research and continually be shown to be wrong. Won’t call it what it really is....
Oh that’s right, once creation stops the world quits turning.
Ha, what? Confusion between the theory and the observation? We observe that populations change over time, and the theory of evolution exists to explain how and why. The change is an absolute fact.
That was never the point of the experiment; the point was that it was an evolution experiment anyone could do, and that creationists be the ones running it. Test evolution for yourself. And you rejected the opportunity.Don’t try that line especially when I offered to let you pick any traits you wanted, even if most favorable to you.
-_- dude, I am performing the experiment, I just have to wait for the tank to cycle, yeesh. It proceeding didn't count on you specifically.That’s how positive I am, and yet you haven’t taken me up on that, pretending you can’t do it because someone doesn’t pick the traits for you.
Lol, I was about to ask him the same thing, since it controls “rest functions” during sleep. That was his gotcha, thinking you’d fall for it.WHAT???? How the hell did you twist that out of what I wrote? I don't think this is true (and never said it) or even somehow relevant. You twist so badly you give a bad rep to Chubby Checker.
Why not, you already assume non-existing common ancestors existed, what’s one more in a long line of assumptions.So much for asking politely. I'll assume this is a case of deflection then, as usual.
Let’s see, what I got from all this is when asked to provide your best evidence you hee hawed around the subject and failed to present it. I’ll tale that as meaning you have none.You said ALL of them. Ever heard of a widow's peak? Much more common in Caucasian people, and it is a dominant gene (it's a feature of the hair line, a bit subtle but it is when it points down towards the middle of the forehead). Skin color genes have incomplete dominance, so children of people with drastically different skin tones are usually an intermediate color. Nose shape and cheekbone structure are variable in terms of inheritance. In fact, I can think of only 2 traits I'd associate as "African" that are inherited in an outright dominant fashion (air quotes because so many different groups have these traits): curly hair and brown eyes.
Generally speaking, the most common traits humans have overall lean more towards recessive genes than dominant ones. This is because, in evolutionary terms, it's easier to have true breeding individuals for a recessive trait than it is to have them for a dominant trait (because people that express the most recessive form of a trait usually can't be carriers of the dominant allele, because if they were, they wouldn't be expressing that recessive trait). Uni-brows aren't the norm, but the gene associated with them is dominant.
lol, I did read the Wiki, because something Wikipedia is really good for is as a source for other sources. I was actually being cheeky a bit with the dog breed I chose, because I have been telling you, dog breeds are not a good standard for degrees of difference. They are entirely arbitrary.
I'm... not? Since when do you think as much?
I'm not going to look through every dog breed to find out, but I bet Swiss herding dogs, such as the Greater Swiss Mountain dog, would benefit greatly from being able to scale rocky, mountainous terrain.
Assuming that all of them have fossilized. Furthermore, did you even read your own quote? Here, I'll bold the part you should have taken notice of. So... why do you think the fossil record should be complete again?
Also, I was responding using your own "source" which I didn't even view as reliable... which you now disagree with because it was inconvenient. Fancy that. Got you to find better sources, though, nice.
That's pretty presumptuous. The not finding transitional fossil part, that is.
There, I fixed that for you.
Why wouldn't I want to put my best foot forward instead? Want to talk about the strongest evidence for evolution? Because it isn't fossils.
I already know that people, including myself, have shown you a plethora of different transitional fossils that you just wave away by claiming them to be "ape" or "human". That is, rather than accept them as transitionals, you want to lump them into categories that would make all species farther from each other in terms of taxonomy. "Intermediate between amphibian and fish? Pish posh, clearly, this creature is just fish, only fish, the amphibian traits don't matter, it's just a fish." This is why I'd rather not talk about fossils with you; fossil identities are just barely uncertain enough that you feel like you can comfortably identify them however you want and ignore their actual classifications.
XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD What do I have to be scared of? The idea of evolution being disproven interests me. I like it when mainstream theories are challenged.
What's this thing? http://occupyilluminati.com/wp-content/plugins/rss-poster/cache/19ed3_oe52d223a8.jpg
Claims of what?
No, but I do get tired of my ADHD causing me to misread things from time to time. I sincerely did read the Wiki and some of the sources it links, but I am human after all. Regardless, the Chinook is your safe space of using dog breeds when you have yet to justify even using dog breeds as a standard by which to measure differences in populations and how they arise.
Not all events must be observed in order to be known.
For example, by only observing the circumstantial evidence exhibited in this picture:
View attachment 214976
We can conclude that it burned there. We don't need to actually observe the fire raging, to know that.
"Not all events must be observed in order to be known." To stay true to that logic you should have posted a blank picture and then come to a conclusion. You refuted yourself...
And by not doing it, they become genetically isolated. Which inevitably leads to a complete inability of interbreeding as they would diverged further and further from one another.
Obviously..... speciation is a vertical process.
Cats will not start producing dogs. They produce more cats.
Every species is a "variation" within the "group" of the ancestral species.
We are.
Why not, you already assume non-existing common ancestors existed, what’s one more in a long line of assumptions.
Go reread, do some math. That’s your problem, you want everything handed to you with no work, so when the evolutionists hand you beliefs you accept them without checking to see if the facts align. Case in point.
You are diverting by trying to make this a discussion of some creationist point and about the veracity of God (absolutely nothing to do with the OP or discussion in general)....
And the first two, regardless of how they have been "classified" are ape (or a mix match hodge podge reconstructed invention). the protruding lower jaw (and slanted face) together with a heavily protruding brow ridge, ape-like eye sockets, and a distinct sagital crest all spell APE.
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?