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.
That is how you deny the inherent dishonesty of evolution news?What about the independant scientists whose work they quote in support of their views? Are you going to dismiss them as well?
What one needs to be aware of is that phylogenetic trees presented by Darwinists may contain branches that are inferred, not the actual evidence of fossils. Sometimes the inferred branches are made obvious by the author, but quite often they're not, which results in a misleading diagram.
The time span of is the least of the problems the Cambrian explosion poses for Darwinism.
Didn't I just explain that? Diagrams of phylogenetic trees are presented , but most of the time they don't inform the reader that some of the branches are inferred - imaginary (based on the assumption of common descent) - and not the evidence of fossils.How so are they misleading? Do tell, oh wise and mighty know it all.
Didn't I just explain that? Diagrams of phylogenetic trees are presented , but most of the time they don't inform the reader that some of the branches are inferred - imaginary (based on the assumption of common descent) - and not the evidence of fossils.
Fossil evidence is considerably weaker than genetic evidence.Didn't I just explain that? Diagrams of phylogenetic trees are presented , but most of the time they don't inform the reader that some of the branches are inferred - imaginary (based on the assumption of common descent) - and not the evidence of fossils.
I'll try to find an example, but as a rule, the bottom of the "tree of life" is highly likely to be inferred - the branches that stem from one common ancestor. Such diagrams show how Darwinists imagine it must have been, not the evidence of fossils.Do you have such an example of an inferred imaginary branch?
I'll try to find an example, but as a rule, the bottom of the "tree of life" is highly likely to be inferred - the branches that stem from one common ancestor. Such diagrams show how Darwinists imagine it must have been, not the evidence of fossils.
There is no fossil evidence that the various phyla that arose during the Cambrian are linked by evolutionary branches - contrary to phylogenetic-tree diagrams presented in textbooks.
I'll try to find an example, but as a rule, the bottom of the "tree of life" is highly likely to be inferred - the branches that stem from one common ancestor. Such diagrams show how Darwinists imagine it must have been, not the evidence of fossils.
There is no fossil evidence that the various phyla that arose during the Cambrian are linked by evolutionary branches - contrary to phylogenetic-tree diagrams presented in textbooks.
How about promoting pseudoscience,What "inherent dishonesty"?
In other words, no gap is so wide that it can't be jumped in the name of TOE.Many creationists (and sadly, some biologists) seem to believe that 'macroevolution' is substantively different from 'microevolution.'
Short answer - it isn't, it is just many rounds of microevolution resulting in speciation.
Creationist propaganda site "CreationWiki" states:
Macroevolution is a purely theoretical biological process thought to produce relatively large (macro) evolutionary change within biological organisms. The term is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".
Not surprising that such people would lie to their target flock. Surprising that so many take it at face value.
From a reliable source, we see that 'macroevolution' is:
"One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that "macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species."- "Evolutionary Biology, 3rd Ed." 1998, p. 477. D. Futuyma.
That is, macroevolution is produced via multiple rounds of speciation. Or put another way, macroevolution is a pattern created by multiple rounds of speciation.
Macroevolution is NOT 'an event' that needs to be 're-created.' It is an observed pattern.
... which in turn is based on the assumption that all organisms share common ancestor.Well, yes, it's inferred, based on evidence from genetics and also extant species.
... which would seem to make no difference to my argument at all.Technically, a bush if just a small tree with more branches than trunk, and that is what we see in biology.
What "pseudoscience" are you referring to?How about promoting pseudoscience,
does that qualify in your mind?
Again, I have to question how you could possibly
not recognize a disreputable source for what it is.
How did the lense in the eye, for example, evolve in terms of mutations and natural selection?The individual components of the various different version of sight found in the animal kingdom can absolutely be broken down into functional steps that are consistent with observed mechanisms.
How did the lense in the eye, for example, evolve in terms of mutations and natural selection?
How do you then test your hypothesis?
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?