- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
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.
It defined evolution perfectly. Non-existent.Care to try something better? Maybe something that defines what evolution is actually about?
But had not man interfered, then what man did in a few thousand years, would have taken millions of years if left to natural circumstances such as famine bringing different wolves together. Then just as we see, each particular breed would have only lived for a shorter or longer period depending on its survivability. And each breed would not have lived at the same time. The progression, which would then appear to you as transitional from one to the next, simply a mistake from your pre-conceived starting point.Except for the fact that dogs have been bred selectively, not as the result of natural pressures, and the different types of ceratopsians lived over a period of many millions of years, with each particular species only living for a short part of that time. The different types of dog all live together.
All fully formed. Just as we observe with dogs. One type followed by another type, in progression, one after the other. Just what you see naturally except on an accelerated time scale. There just would not be as many breeds if man was not there to care for them. Those would have went extinct.In short, when we talk about the ceratopsians, it's one type, followeed by a second type followed by a third type etc, in a progression, one after the other.
It’s exactly what happens with dogs. One type followed by another type leading to another. The Chinook only existed after both the Husky and the Mastiff. One after another.That is NOT what happens with dogs. So don't try to compare the two, okay?
But had not man interfered, then what man did in a few thousand years, would have taken millions of years if left to natural circumstances such as famine bringing different wolves together. Then just as we see, each particular breed would have only lived for a shorter or longer period depending on its survivability. And each breed would not have lived at the same time. The progression, which would then appear to you as transitional from one to the next, simply a mistake from your pre-conceived starting point.
All fully formed. Just as we observe with dogs. One type followed by another type, in progression, one after the other. Just what you see naturally except on an accelerated time scale. There just would not be as many breeds if man was not there to care for them. Those would have went extinct.
It’s exactly what happens with dogs. One type followed by another type leading to another. The Chinook only existed after both the Husky and the Mastiff. One after another.
View attachment 214773
Now spread that out over millions of years without man’s interference, and you have exactly what you see in ceratopsian.
No, no, no.How do you not understand the point I am making?
With ceratopsians, we have A leads to B leads to C leads to D leads to E leads to F.
With dogs, we have A leads to B, A leads to C, A leads to D, A leads to E, A leads to F.
How are you incapable of seeing the difference here?
No, no, no.
Several of those ceratopsian lived at exactly the same time. As a matter of fact there’s was never a single time when only one of the was alive. You got no clue what led to what. You got no clue if A mated with B and produced C, then A mated with C and produced D.
And in dogs A led to B. Mating A and B led to C. Mating A and C led to D. Mating B and D led to E. A did not become a poodle. Mating after mating after mating with different breeds is what led to the poodle.
Not once after wolves we’re domesticated did we go out and catch more wolves and start over. One from the other. The trees are exactly the same. The only difference is they got no clue whatsoever which ceratopsian bred with what, so are unable to produce a realistic family tree for any dinosaur. It is all colored by their false belief that one magically becomes two.
Not a single animal alive today does this. You never see a new bear variant until grizzly mates with polar bear.
You never see a new deer variant until white tailed deer mate with mule deer.
You never see a new finch variant until the ground finch mates with the tree finch, just like the Grants observed.
Never in the history of the world has one creature mutated into another. Not once.....
Just as in the real world, where every tree branches, two mate.
You have no clue about the history of dogs because you have never bothered to look. You talk without even knowing what you are talking about.
Since your comprehension is problematic I’ll spell it out for you...No change has ever been documented for any creature ever.
In essence here is what JTS has said (over and over) that some appear not to be able to comprehend...
Every fossil ever found for any specific type of creature, that specific creature always remains the same. There is zero, count them, zero evidence that any type of creature evolved into another type. Every type of creature has remained the same across hundreds of millions of years.
Since your comprehension is problematic I’ll spell it out for you...No change has ever been documented for any creature ever.
Well, the ToE says that populations change, not individual creatures. But we have documentation of new species being formed through polyploidy:
And the fossil record certainly shows sequences where one species vanishes to be replaced by another, slightly different, one.
Yes Polypoidy does show possibilities of inheritance and cross breeding.
I think most people understand the idea.....
And disregard it because it's stupid.
That's just gibberish. That sentence doesn't mean anything.
There's no point having a conversation if you don't make sense.
Sounds like the production of a reproductive barrier to me.According to the article:
They can't reproduce not because it's an entirely new species, but they adapted in a way that the mating songs weren't distinguished by the females, so they were entirely isolated. That's completely different than saying it became a whole new species.
Ha, what? What are "Asian traits" dude? I am eternally confused with exactly how you view different human "races". Especially considering that, say, two people from Asia that you'd probably say have stereotypical Asian traits usually have more genetic differences between the two of them than, say, two people from Europe with stereotypical European traits. And then you bring up "you can tell races apart genetically" as if the minor differences between them being mostly genetic is some sort of trump card. From a guy that admits that minor variations, such as color, can arise via mutation.Actually less variation than are seen in canines, and that was caused for selective breeding of traits, just like Asians selectively bred with others of Asian traits.
http://www.evolutionevidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Genealogy-of-the-dog-low-res.jpgJust like Africans selectively bred with others of African traits. You haven’t shown evolution, just proven that selectively breeding for traits, then cross breeding two of them (Husky and Mastiff makes a Chinook, and Asian and African make a Afro-Asian) leads to variation. Which I already am quite aware of.
Alright, now I have the time to address this part, and wow, there is a lot to address.They aren’t any evidence for evolution. They actually falsify it. That’s why every creature found in the fossil record always remains the same across hundreds of millions of years.
Are you seriously using Quora as a source?Your still using that lame excuse?
https://www.quora.com/How-many-fossils-have-been-found-and-documented
-_- and how many organisms have lived on this planet ever? And how many of those fossils are repeats of organisms that happened to be particularly numerous and fossilized easily? There may be trillions of fossils, but I have more fingers than there are fossils for most give dinosaur species named.
Look up the number of jellyfish fossils.Are you claiming now that most of the claims made by paleontologist about how dinosaurs looked and lived and the entire phylogenic tree is based on pure assumption with hardly any evidence to back them up?
And YES in the fossil record some creatures suddenly vanish and others appear (just as suddenly and fully formed with all inter-dependent subsystems functional and in place).
Not really Jim, since until about the last 50 years or so it was the claim. Glad you are born in a time when many evolutionists are also declaring it stupid! People had been telling them that for years.
It sounds like you're going down the crocoduck route with this, and you're better than that mate.
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?