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.
Evolution is a fact because changes in the heritable traits of populations over generations have been observed countless times, and that is the definition of biological evolution.You saying I don’t know the difference doesn’t make it so either; and just saying evolution is a fact doesn’t make it so.
When and how did the theory of evolution become a fact?
If the robot appears to be intentionally manufactured (tool marks, mold lines, non-natural materials, a label that says "made in China," that sort of thing) then yes. Evidence of intentional manufacture is evidence of design.so if you will see a self replicating robot you will not conclude design?
You need to learn what evidence is. If you understood the concept there would be no need to ask.so if you will see a self replicating robot you will not conclude design?
who said it is evidence against evolution? it was evidence against your claim that different codons for the same amino acid have no meaning.
What, exactly, is your issue with common descent? It is a simple, observed process within the framework of biological evolution and the wider universe as a whole.not if you refer to a common descent.
if i undertsand your description then its actually a bit complicated. in hebrew gear means also this:Does the word for "gear" only mean an object of human manufacture with serried projections intended to transmit power?
Then we agree that the insect legs you want to call gears in English are not "gears" in Hebrew since they are not wheels? Great, so now you can think about why they are not gears in English in the sense that you want them to be.
There you go. Hebrew speakers use different words where English speakers co-opt a word. You demonstrate nicely how your argument relies 100% on equivocation.i think that some actually use the word gear for actuall gears when they are speaking about a car gear.
I read both articles and all I saw was the fossil of a fish. The picture of the complete fish coming out of the water is an artist's impression done from his imagination of he thinks the fish may have looked like. The other picture of a Jurassic flesh eating fish looks just like another version of our modern day piranha, found in the Amazon River. Very little difference, hence no appreciable evolution that fish at all.Researchers have discovered the fossil of a fish with finger-like digits in its fin that lived 380 million years ago, according to a new study. And they believe it bridges the evolutionary gap between marine and land vertebrates as one of the oldest examples of a skeletal pattern resembling a hand.
The study published Wednesday in the journal Nature.
"Today we announce in the journal Nature our discovery of a complete specimen of a tetrapod-like fish, called Elpistostege, which reveals extraordinary new information about the evolution of the vertebrate hand," said John Long, study author and Strategic Professor in Palaeontology at Flinders University in Australia.
"This is the first time that we have unequivocally discovered fingers locked in a fin with fin-rays in any known fish. The articulating digits in the fin are like the finger bones found in the hands of most animals."
In the phylogenetic tree, this species is near the justly-famous Tiktaalik.
No, but it might make the front page of the National Enquirer.I read both articles and all I saw was the fossil of a fish. The picture of the complete fish coming out of the water is an artist's impression done from his imagination of he thinks the fish may have looked like. The other picture of a Jurassic flesh eating fish looks just like another version of our modern day piranha, found in the Amazon River. Very little difference, hence no appreciable evolution that fish at all.
So say that the fish depicted in the fossil evolved into more complex fish, leading to land animals and then to humans is pure conjecture. There is no actual proof that the fish ever evolved into anything else, and it could have been an earlier form of moray eel, which went extinct long ago, but the same fish family still exists in the form of the moray eel, fresh water eel, and other eel types. We don't even know whether it was actually green! That's just from the imagination of the artist.
I could buy a new home, and discover buried in the garden a collection of bones, have them examined and find dog and cat bones, and then speculate that it is the discovery of an unknown species of dog/cat, piece the bones together to make a composite dog/cat skeleton and get an artist to draw his impression of what the animal looked like, and then present it to the evolutionary scientific community as the discovery of a new missing link! Do you think I would get away with it?
I read both articles and all I saw was the fossil of a fish. The picture of the complete fish coming out of the water is an artist's impression done from his imagination of he thinks the fish may have looked like. The other picture of a Jurassic flesh eating fish looks just like another version of our modern day piranha, found in the Amazon River. Very little difference, hence no appreciable evolution that fish at all.
So say that the fish depicted in the fossil evolved into more complex fish, leading to land animals and then to humans is pure conjecture. There is no actual proof that the fish ever evolved into anything else, and it could have been an earlier form of moray eel, which went extinct long ago, but the same fish family still exists in the form of the moray eel, fresh water eel, and other eel types. We don't even know whether it was actually green! That's just from the imagination of the artist.
I could buy a new home, and discover buried in the garden a collection of bones, have them examined and find dog and cat bones, and then speculate that it is the discovery of an unknown species of dog/cat, piece the bones together to make a composite dog/cat skeleton and get an artist to draw his impression of what the animal looked like, and then present it to the evolutionary scientific community as the discovery of a new missing link! Do you think I would get away with it?
True! Headline: This Is Your True Ancestor And There Is Nothing Fishy About This Story!"No, but it might make the front page of the National Enquirer.
True! Headline: This Is Your True Ancestor And There Is Nothing Fishy About This Story!"
Do you know that there are liars, damnable liars, and fishermen describing the size of the one that got away?Speaking of fish, it’s why humans get hiccups.
I guess you do.Yep. We call them “televangelists.”
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?