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.
Nor do most even realize Jesus was born in October. Since he was 33 1/2 years old at the time of his death, which occurred in April, the sheep were in the fields, which in November they start bringing them down from the pasturing areas.
so a robot that can evolve naturally isnt a robot by definition?
Their beliefs actually require more faith. All they see is fish creating more fish, cats creating more cats, and in the fossil record every distinct type always remaining the same for that type. Then propose some non-exsistant common ancestor to bridge the gap between these distinct types, even if no evidence of this common ancestor that supposedly bridges this gap can be found for any of them.
Darwin I respected, he allowed for a falsification of his theory, to which all conditions have been met. But it is no longer a scientific theory capable of falsification.
And it’s a theory, not science. At least learn the distinction between the two
And yet through actual studies of real populations versus fantasies of the mind, this is the exact conclusion the Grants came to.
“Introgressive hybridization is effective in increasing genetic variation because it simultaneously affects numerous genetic loci. The total effect on continuously varying traits can be up to two or three orders of magnitude greater than mutation (Grant & Grant 1994).”
So in the wild, under actual natural conditions, the Grants found interbreeding to be 2 to 3 magnitudes greater than mutation could ever be, because it affects simultaneously numerous genetic loci, while a mutation, if it manages to do anything, affects one, and has an even greater chance of affecting it negatively than positively.
You won’t accept the evidence right in front of your eyes.
Actually, the pagan winter solstice festivities in the north started on dec 21. The shortest day happens on dec 22. 3 days later, the festivities climaxed when the days turn longer again.
Actually, it was a point made in reply to another post. But I don't see you complaining about THAT post. Funny that. While the guy I responded to, is kind of the king of derailments.
lol
Yep, no problem with that, makes perfect sense.
And you accept mutations as having an effect on varying traits now? Good stuff!
Yeah, I read it thanks.
So for introgressive hybridization to occur two species must be at an early stage of the speciation process?
Divergence and a decline in introgression with time implies that introgression has the largest evolutionary effect after some morphological, ecological and genetic differences between species have arisen, but before the point is reached when genetic incompatibilities incur a severe fitness cost (Grant et al. 2004; Grant & Grant 2008).
In nature it occurs mainly between young species (figure 8), and is evident in several young adaptive radiations including those of butterflies (Mallett 2005), cichlid fish (Kocher 2004; Seehausen 2006) and primates (Arnold 2006; Patterson et al. 2006). With the lapse of time introgression declines, for two reasons: species diverge in morphological and behavioural traits and no longer recognize each other as potential mates (pre-mating isolation), and they diverge genetically with the result that if they interbreed their offspring are relatively inviable or infertile (post-mating isolation).
To any reasonable person that should suggest that there is another mechanism responsible for genetic divergence.
It also suggests that the two species that are hybridizing must have diverged relatively recently from their ancestral population, so the speciation process must surely be underway before they can hybridize?
Right! So you were incorrect about the unrelated Christmas Zinger...
you could have simply admitted as such...
Yes two SUB-species would have already undergone a degree of speciation
(by definition two separate species cannot mate and produce fertile offspring...unless you are among those who conveniently change meanings of words to support their presupposition).
JTS holds that inheritance plays a more important role in producing sub-species
So I ask for a direct answer...what is the ultimate source of all the various canines in evolutionary history?
Is not "grey wolf" considered a major contributor?
lol, no.Understand Jimmy...if you say YES then you have in one sense made HIS point.
Yes two SUB-species would have already undergone a degree of speciation (by definition two separate species cannot mate and produce fertile offspring...unless you are among those who conveniently change meanings of words to support their presupposition).
JTS holds that inheritance plays a more important role in producing sub-species. So I ask for a direct answer...what is the ultimate source of all the various canines in evolutionary history? Is not "grey wolf" considered a major contributor? Understand Jimmy...if you say YES then you have in one sense made HIS point.
thanks. now, do you agree that an object that is identical to a robot is a robot?
Post 257. Try reading posts in threads now and then and I won’t have to keep repeating myself 20 times.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...DD39A88?doi=10.1.1.722.7853&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Interbreeding, what do you think we are discussing?
Well I’m actually looking forward to the next post... very well articulated.
Oh but one small mistake. Not yours, I realize it’s their presumption, but genetic data can’t infer relationship as we have no genetic data for much beyond today’s species with but maybe 6 samples.
ok. check my signature link for instance.I'm sorry but your fantasies about robots, cars, bikes etc evolving are asinine and are going nowhere. I don't even know what point you are trying to make anymore.
If you do not accept evolution theory - fine. But please find some arguments against it that actually make sense and don't lead everyone down a rabbit hole.
since you agree that an artificial penguin is a robot and since an object that is identical to a robot is a robot then a "natural" penguin is a robot too be definition.Yes - 2 robots.
Only a robot will be identical to another robot.
I know that you are going to respond with something ludicrous like 'a designed robot penguin blah blah.'.
Not buying it.
Instead of this torture illogic, why not come up with something of merit?
Hypotheticals and playing with definitions will not rescue that which has no evidence at all in its favor.
I’m not talking to them, I asked what you think it means.What publishing biologists mean by it.
The “inter” part is quite apt."interbreeding"?
You mean just wolves breeding with other wolves, right?
And that eventually producing a lineage of dog?
Not sure what you mean by "interbreeding" here.
I mean, it's just wolves.... with other wolves. Wouldn't that be just "breeding"?
What's with the "inter" part?
I’m still waiting for you to tell me what you think biologists mean when they use the word. Again, I am talking to you, not them, so it is your concept of it that is all that matters.I use the word, like publishing biologists use the word.
My beliefs don't dictate to me how reality is like.
Instead, I allow reality to shape my beliefs.
And you accept mutations as having an effect on varying traits now? Good stuff!
Huh?
I'm from belgium. We don't celebrate halloween or thanksgiving.
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?