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.
LOL, Yeah, I'm going to go over a lengthy scientific paper checking all their calculations to prove a point to a stranger on the internet. How do I know what your referring to, your sentence doesn't even make sense....
"Interesting on that he says fossils agree them we find out their actual dating does not. By 30 million years."
So who to believe? Someone who doesn't seem to have a clue about biology and paleontology (remember the time you hadn't even heard of subfossils, that was a good one!) or the authors of the paper?
You just claimed Homo erectus is an ape - but your buddy justa wrote that "I simply claim humans have always been humans. If you want to call them Neanderthals, or H. Erectus, that’s fine."
You just pooped in Justa's flowerbed.
LOL, it's a head scratcher alright. It's almost as if they don't really have any sort of consistent framework or structure for their ideas apart from responding with increduilty to scientific facts...
(One for the brits there)
At which point they just change the story, while keeping the underlying theory which was falsified to begin with.Please.... the only side here that happily admits being wrong when actually being wrong, is the science side. In fact, that's when scientists are most excited: when it turns our they were wrong. Because it means learning and making progress.
It’s not my fault you can’t produce a single common ancestor. That everything always remains distinct. That you ignore how variation of form occurs."Being wrong" is not in your average creationist's handbook or dictionary. They can't be wrong, because they have the bible. And if reality disagrees, it's reality that is wrong - not their faith based beliefs.
We agree, you have problems separating the real observable and testable data from the story you have been told is true, despite the fact that the only time you have observed change in form is when two subspecies mate.They have a real problem once convinced of a claim, separating the the real observable testable data from the story they have been persuaded is true.
Textbook projection.
Sort of like evolutionists implying that anyone that does not prop up their fantasies is engaging in nefarious antics?That and implying that those involved in any field of inquiry that does not prop up their fantasies is engaging in nefarious antics...
It’s not my fault you can’t produce a single common ancestor. That everything always remains distinct. That you ignore how variation of form occurs.
You know, like Husky mating with Mastiff to produce the Chinook. Like polar bear mating with grizzly to produce the prizzly or grolar depending on male or female. Like lion mating with tiger to produce the Liger. Like Liger mating with lion to produce the Li-Liger. Like ground finch mating with tree finch to produce the as yet unnamed finch.
Says the guy that ignores the scientific definitions of both species and subspecies. Can’t present a single common ancestor. Ignores the only time he’s observed a change in form is when two subspecies mate. Can’t decide if it’s gradual mutation over millions of years - missing forms, or sudden change.LOL, it's a head scratcher alright. It's almost as if they don't really have any sort of consistent framework or structure for their ideas apart from responding with increduilty to scientific facts...
(One for the brits there)
Sort of like evolutionists implying that anyone that does not prop up their fantasies is engaging in nefarious antics?
Another case of classic textbook projection.
Wolves, haven’t you been keeping up with science? It’s what all dogs came from. It’s been explained in the scientific literature for decades.It IS your fault that you keep writing things like ' Husky mating with Mastiff to produce the Chinook' but refuse to explain what two types mated to produce the Husky or Mastiff in the first place.
so an object that its identical to a robot (a "robot" that evolved by a natural process) isnt a robot?
Wolves, haven’t you been keeping up with science? It’s what all dogs came from. It’s been explained in the scientific literature for decades.
It IS your fault that you keep writing things like ' Husky mating with Mastiff to produce the Chinook'
-_- no, only that I won't go through the effort if you aren't willing to ask. You asked for fossils, which people have already provided you in excess so I KNOW that won't go anywhere with you. I've provided ample opportunities for you to willingly talk about what I consider to be the strongest evidence for evolution, but whenever I have you just seem to get irritated that I don't want to talk about fossils.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.
Example of what? Your idea that only crossbreeding "breeds" produces new breeds? No, because breeds are entirely arbitrary. I could just have a Jack Russell born with a curly tail, breed it with other Jack Russells to preserve the trait, and have a new breed named, and it'd be considered just as much a different breed from Jack Russells as a chihuahua is.Why shouldn’t dogs be an excellent example?
I've never claimed hybridization isn't a mechanism by which new species or "breeds" can arise. However, it doesn't explain new traits independent of the parent species/breeds, such as various dog breeds with webbed feet.Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook. Every animal alive does this.
Yeah, we make silly names for hybrids in nature. I wouldn't call any of those a new species or "breed" though unless they establish independent populations that become more consistent with their traits. First generation hybrids aren't true breeding.Polar bear mates with grizzly and produces the pizzly. Grizzly mates with polar bear and produces the grolar. Just depending on which is male and female.
Something that has been discussed with you before: the hybrids of Galapagos finches are not as common as you assert, and generally have very low mating success to the point that they don't cause any of the separate species to merge into a single population.Ground finch mates with tree finch and produces as an yet unnamed finch.
Only in captivity, and those hybrids have horrific health problems and fertility issues. I suggest sticking to hybrids that occur without human intervention for your examples, since unwillingness to mate in their natural environment is considered a significant enough barrier to reproduction to distinguish different populations as different species.Tigers mate with lions and produce Ligers. Ligers mate with lions and produce the Li-Liger.
Define "new form". It's so vague that it could be anything from just slightly longer fur to an extra limb. That phrase gets used so much, and it too has no official standard.All of these animals have undergone countless mutations, yet despite this, it is only when they interbreed that a new form arises.
Me personally? Seen it happen with bacteria that all originate from a single bacterium, though they are called strains rather than subspecies.Contemplate on this and you’ll realize it’s the only time you have observed new subspecies arise in the species.
Quite true, but the observation itself doesn’t tell us if it happened by random events, or if set deliberately. So superficial observations can only take us so far.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.
Easily proven. Have you seen wolves change into a dog breed in the last several thousand years without mans interference? So we can conclude if left on their own without interfering the creation of different forms would take an unknown amount of time. But inherently there is no difference between man mating a Husky and a Mastiff to get a Chinook or famine bringing the two together creating a Chinook. The only difference would be geological time.Good luck supporting that claim.
Why, because you don’t want to accept that he allowed for a falsification of his theory when the required innumerable intermediaries were not found in the future?Without going in on this particular subject, since I don't have enough knowledge about it, I'ld just like to point out how bizarre I think it is to be using quotes of Darwin when trying to argue agains 21ste century biology.
Since Darwin didn’t know about DNA and classified finches as separate species based solely on the incorrect belief they were reproductively isolated, them why are you not objecting to the continued incorrect classification of them as separate species? Especially when the DNA showed the had been extensively interchanging genes and were a mixed class? If you cared about science and not just trying to uphold your theory you’d be insisting they fix the error Darwin made and they continue to perpetuate.Darwin didn't even know about DNA. While the dude is credited for the discovery of the concept of Natural Selection and, in broad terms, the idea that all species share a common ancestor, there was a LOT he did not know about. There were also quite a few things that he got wrong, obviously.
Yes we did. We learned those finches were never reproductively isolated and so speciation never happened.But why dwell on it? His ideas are 200 years old or whatever. Biology learned a thing or two since then.
Then show me under what explanation of speciation those finches fit under.The definition of "species" does not explain how speciation works. It merely defines what a species is.
The get with it and stop delaying.-_- no, only that I won't go through the effort if you aren't willing to ask. You asked for fossils, which people have already provided you in excess so I KNOW that won't go anywhere with you. I've provided ample opportunities for you to willingly talk about what I consider to be the strongest evidence for evolution, but whenever I have you just seem to get irritated that I don't want to talk about fossils.
I said get with it and show it two posts ago. That’s a yes in case you didn’t understand.So, straight up, do you want to talk about what I consider to be the strongest evidence for evolution or not? It's a yes or no question, so one of those two words should be your answer. No more and no less.
Sort of like naming animals that mate separate species because of beaks? Or habitats? Or niche, or geographic isolation, or the other arbitrary designations?Example of what? Your idea that only crossbreeding "breeds" produces new breeds? No, because breeds are entirely arbitrary. I could just have a Jack Russell born with a curly tail, breed it with other Jack Russells to preserve the trait, and have a new breed named, and it'd be considered just as much a different breed from Jack Russells as a chihuahua is.
Oh but there is, and it is quite exacting. Why they even follow their own definitions. Imagine that.Since there isn't any standard of difference by which to label separate dog breeds, they make for a poor standard of measuring how different populations must be in order to be considered different subspecies, for example.
Neither does mutation, unless you are purposing an intelligence behind the process which knows this dog needs webbed feet because it’s in the water a lot? Are you proposing Intelligent Design?I've never claimed hybridization isn't a mechanism by which new species or "breeds" can arise. However, it doesn't explain new traits independent of the parent species/breeds, such as various dog breeds with webbed feet.
And the AKA does not recognize the offspring of two registered breeds as a separate breed. They must first show inherent distinctness down the generations.Yeah, we make silly names for hybrids in nature. I wouldn't call any of those a new species or "breed" though unless they establish independent populations that become more consistent with their traits. First generation hybrids aren't true breeding.
That’s plain false. You best read the grants paper. They state specifically the offspring were more fit than the parents, and three were merging into one.Something that has been discussed with you before: the hybrids of Galapagos finches are not as common as you assert, and generally have very low mating success to the point that they don't cause any of the separate species to merge into a single population.
Such as finches?Only in captivity, and those hybrids have horrific health problems and fertility issues. I suggest sticking to hybrids that occur without human intervention for your examples, since unwillingness to mate in their natural environment is considered a significant enough barrier to reproduction to distinguish different populations as different species.
Well if a human grew a third functioning leg, I would consider that a new form.Define "new form". It's so vague that it could be anything from just slightly longer fur to an extra limb. That phrase gets used so much, and it too has no official standard.
Strains, subspecies, same thing in reality.Me personally? Seen it happen with bacteria that all originate from a single bacterium, though they are called strains rather than subspecies.
For a historical one, every cultivar and subspecies of potato arose from a single species, as determined from genetic testing. Same goes with all Venus flytrap cultivars; entirely red variants, entirely yellow variants, and ones with warped traps that don't even work all arose in captivity due to selective breeding of plants that grew randomly different from the rest due to mutations. Most of them even being produced within your lifetime. In fact, it's actually impossible for new varieties of Venus flytrap to arise via crossbreeding, because it's a monotypic genus; there's nothing to cross it with.
Ah, so you were diverting in the coccyx thread when you rambled on about ERVs and the like -
Got it.
Cool.
And an attempt at well poisoning to top it off!
They spell APE to you - but why should anyone care?
Your background is in brainwashing (by your own admission, the only thing you've done actual 'research' on), not physical anthropology - and it is DEFINITELY not in anatomy. Your laughable fairy tale claims about the coccyx prove that! LOL!
nd thanks for doing the creationist jig and ignoring most of the post!
Please explain this cladogram to us all, since you portray yourself as knowing all about them:
And finally, superstar -
You just claimed Homo erectus is an ape - but your buddy justa wrote that "I simply claim humans have always been humans. If you want to call them Neanderthals, or H. Erectus, that’s fine."
You just pooped in Justa's flowerbed.
And they didn’t mention those some called ape and man that were pigs teeth. Orangutans skulls called human. That two laypersons might make two choices different when experts can’t even tell the difference between pigs teeth and humans, or orangutan skulls and human is certainly nothing to write home about.You just claimed Homo erectus is an ape - but your buddy justa wrote that "I simply claim humans have always been humans. If you want to call them Neanderthals, or H. Erectus, that’s fine...you pooped in justa's flower bed....
Nope not at all. Many classified as H.E. are humans only many placed in that man made classification are apes, some are mix matched hodge podges of more than one creature (like Leaky's Heidelberg and Dubois' Java)...there were human skulls among the Java finds as well as ape parts...and Leaky's Heidelberg (not to be confused with some others) is from about three nations with an artistically made up face for the media.
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?