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.
Some aspects of evolution do feature talking animals. Maybe we should tighten up that definition so it specifies talking nonhuman animals...
I take it that you decline then.
No it does not.
That one can categorise organisms is not, in itself, evidence for (or against) evolution. The classification of organisms seems rather arbitrary to me.
I could ask the same questions of people who like to give the impression that it is evidence and not interpretations of evidence that support their claims. Who only avoid the accusation of believing in ''magic'' themselves by refusing to discuss abiogenesis as part of our alleged evolution. Define miracle and I guarantee that it covers abiogenesis although, of course, it will not be attributed to God. That is the real reason evolutionists refuse to discuss it as part of the ToE. [The only explanation other than a natural one would have to be a super-natural one and they don't want to even consider that option.]
An argument from personal incredulity? You Aron-Ra? Whatever next?
No. That means I do not decline.
Yes it does. But you have to understand what it is and how it works before you comment on it either way.
Only because you don't know what you're talking about.
No you could not. Because unlike religion, science does not swear to refuse any alternative answer.
Your guarantee is called. The definition "miracle" is the same as that of "magic" except that miracles are we call the magic that gods do. The definition is of "magic" is: Something which is both inexplicable by science and impossible according to known physical laws. While we have not yet shown exactly abiogenesis happened, it certainly isn't impossible according to physical laws.
Science can't use "magic" as an explanation of anything, because its untestable and doesn't explain anything. That should be obvious. There are other natural alternatives for abiognesis, but the reason they are not part of evolution is because evolution -by definition- depends on inherited genetic traits, and that obviously can't happen if genetics don't exist yet. The formation of the genome therefore has to be a completely different process.
As always you're wrong again. Abiogenesis still wouldn't be inherited genetics no matter what else we proved it to be.
Wrong. You still will not be permitted to argue your straw-man fallacies. You will have to adhere to the real definitions or all discussion with you will be meaningless. That's why creationists insist on using the wrong definitions for practically everything.
Only if you're arguing the fallacy that evolution doesn't permit the involvment of a god.
I admit that it has not been shown to be impossible. Rather it has been shown to be possible, although we don't yet know exactly how it happened.
Science makes predictions, and unlike religious prophesy, the predictions of science are testable. That fact alone proves it is not faith nor anything like it.
Don't put words in my mouth, and don't change what I say as if I said what you wanted me to. I said an incantation spell, because that's what the Bible describes; magic words poofing everything out of nothing, no different than any other primitive myth.
Not personal incredulity, but logic. Every seemingly-random thing that happens in life belivers say that God orchestrated. This is true of most of the people who accept evolution also. Most of them believe in God as well. The majority of them are Christian in fact, and they believe that God is in control of evolution; that evolution, like every other system in nature, is part of God’s design. Creationists deviate from that by believing that every seeminly-random thing that happens now is a matter of God working through his own orchestration of natural systems. But in thier idolatry of scripture, they insist that creation had to be different, that God couldn't have used any ingenious orchestration of systems or events, but that he must have used magic spells instead. Its ludicrus, but that's what you believe.
So, are you in agreement that some races are less complex than others? And, if not --- how come we (humanity in general) varies in color, build, height, intelligence, voice quality, and expression. Doesn't that denote a shift or change that would eventually develope into another species? If not, then how would such a change happen?ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-) n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.
[Latin volti, voltin-, from voltus, past participle of volvere, to unroll; see evolve.]
evo·lution·al, evo·lution·ary (-sh-nr) adj.
evo·lution·ari·ly adv.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution
There are lots of online dictionaries. Why don't you bookmark this one?
for one there is NO races. we are ALL the same. the only thing that makes us RACES is our ideas not GENETICS. genetics shows we are ALL the same race with lots of different colors and shapes. which i find odd seeing how every other species has many types of species genetically different. SO there is no speciation in humans. Even when they are isolated like in the jungles of africa and south america. The only RACE issue is a personal one. SO there is no interbreeding either. OR AM I ALL WRONG.
You're confusing "race" with "species". There are actual races, which we define by inheritable physical traits. If we continued to live in complete isolation without breeding between groups, given enough time we would see speciation to two or more human species. That could still happen if, for instance, we send groups off on "generation ships" to colonise distant planets but can't easily send people between different inhabited worlds.
For once, amazingly, I have to agree with Schroeder. The word, "race" can mean any number of lineages, but the most common misuse of that is to equate it to subspecies, which hasn't applied since at least the last 30,000 years or so. Genetically, we are indestinguishable in as much as it is impossible to simply look at someone's genome and decide which continent their ancestors came from.
No, you're talking about demes, which are culturally defined regardless of physical trends. The reason is that there is no trait that every member of one deme has that is shared with every single member of that deme, and is not shared by any member of any other deme. You would need that for your defintion of "race" to apply. Otherwise, the word "race" can distinguish Picts from Celts and Navajos from Apache, Hatfields and McCoys, etc.
I have read this sentence three times and still have no idea what you are talking about. Other species have many types of species?
You're going to have to define what you mean by "more complex".
These are largely due to evolution. African populations have dark pigmentation because of how strong the sunlight is. They also have a higher incidence of the sickle cell gene because it is a defense agains malaria.
AFAIK, there is nothing to show one "race" is more intelligent that another.
These are largely societal. Vocal range is based on the dimentions of the larynx, which is genetic and could therefore be evolutionary. How people use their voice and express themselves is going to be almost completely societal.
Were the differentiation to continue, speciation could eventually be the result, but that's not likely. The methods of travel we've developed have enormously increased the potential for gene flow between world populations. This goes completely against speciation.
No, Gracchus is going to have to define "more complex." He used it first..... If divergence does not preclude one race being superior to any other. (the question being a valid one), how can one say all races are equal? Does not a specie have to specialize and diversify before it becomes two separates species? That would seem to be the evolutionary model. The creation model is that there is only variety without ever true separation. In other words, across the board, all the races are equally human and not any more or less human than the other. The evolution model would suggest that the "newer" race would have advantages with systematic calulations and language skills, while the "older" race would be able to hop, skip, and jump better for hunting purposes but be without refined designer and artistic skills. Evolutionists cannot have it both ways. The 19th century evolutionists were fully able to accept evolutionary concepts and attempted to apply them to try and building a race of gods. This means that older races were expendable to those ends. The creationist sees men as either redeemed or lost. They view education, as the means to provide personal study habits for Biblical understanding among the lost. The evolutionist see that some races may be exploited to the evolutionist's ends............
You're right, of course. I was thinking of "race" as used in a looser sociological and anthropological way, as opposed to any biological definition, since I think that's what the colloquial use of the term (and the use in "racism") tends to be.
