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 would be each generation over a period of milions of years. Many tens of thousands, probably. You want every one or you're not going to believe in evolution?If you understand how evolution works, please describe how nature produced each of the evolutionary steps for the whale's blowhole.
I will attempt to clear up your confusion:So you aren't disputing that evolution happened, meaning that you accept that it has happened, and yet you simultaneously don't think "it's the truth".
Tell me, how is it that you can accept that evolution happened, while also thinking that it isn't truth or the truth?
If you know how evolution works, please chose a macro-evolutionary transition from the fossil record and describe all the evolutionary steps involved and how nature produced each of those steps.Can you explain why?
Micro evolution demonstrates how difference is generated and how it can accumulate.
The existence of macro-evolution requires there to be significant accumulated difference.
If accumulated micro evolution is the explanation for macro evolutionary change then particular evidence would be present... and it is.
True, but the theory of evolution is not being represented as "the truth," merely as the best explanation currently available given the evidence now on hand.I will attempt to clear up your confusion:
I accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth began perhaps billions of years ago, after which more complex and diverse life-forms appeared.
I also accept that ToE is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, but I don't accept ToE as the truth because I believe
(a) the truth cannot ever be known (not in this life time, at least) and
For example?(b) ToE cannot explain all the evidence.
"demonstrable" changes?
The inability to demonstrate every single step is irrelevant if the method is can be demonstrated and is consistent with the evidence.Please demonstrate all the steps involved in the evolution of a eurkaryote from a prokaryote.
Please demonstrate all the steps involved in the evolution of a bird from a reptile.
If you know how evolution works, here is your chance to demonstrate your knowledge.
If you know how evolution works, please chose a macro-evolutionary transition from the fossil record and describe all the evolutionary steps involved and how nature produced each of those steps.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm not claiming there's no evidence for evolution, if that's what you think.How did I know that all you'd do is the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALA! Not evidence! Not evidence!"
It's not a totally complete picture, but no one ever claimed it was.I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm not claiming there's no evidence for evolution, if that's what you think.
In fact I accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth has "evolved" over vast periods of time and I accept that ToE is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth.
My argument is that no one can possibly know HOW life evolved.
I didn't say ToE is being represented as the truth.True, but the theory of evolution is not being represented as "the truth," merely as the best explanation currently available given the evidence now on hand.
I'm not going to waste any more time and effort on that discussion. Been there, done that.For example?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm not claiming there's no evidence for evolution, if that's what you think.
In fact I accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth has "evolved" over vast periods of time and I accept that ToE is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth.
My argument is that no one can possibly know HOW life evolved.
Very well, then please describe the process involved in just one macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record, the steps involved and how nature produced each of those steps.The inability to demonstrate every single step is irrelevant if the method is can be demonstrated and is consistent with the evidence.
Fail.Okay, hominids spread over Africa, Europe and the Middle East.
The group in Europe lived more by hunting and so the advantages went to a sturdier shorter build with heavier bones. The instances of paler hair may indicate paler skin as an adaptation to the lower sunlight of ice age Europe.
Meanwhile the group that stayed in Africa developed a taller and lither frame with a looser muscle structure that supported more long distance weaponry like bows or spear throwers. They also relied on gathered food much more than their northern cousins. Evidence indicates that the majority had a darker skin tone at this point.
These two species had varied from a common ancestor and a multitude of small changes that left both still hominids but different enough to be classified as different species or at least sub species.
It's all about tiny changes becoming statistically more common and if enough build up it's a new species and thus macro evolution.
Neanderthals weren't designed to live in Europe, but living in Europe created a pressure that left the better adapted offspring more common.
In that case, please describe how one the first alleged macro-evoltionary transitions took place - how eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. Describe the steps involved and how natural selection and what environmental pressures produced each of those steps.We know HOW life evolved: via the process of natural selection via random mutation due to environmental pressures
I am a generous and reasonable man, so I won't demand a generation-by-generation description.That would be each generation over a period of milions of years. Many tens of thousands, probably. You want every one ...?
When did I say I don't believe in evolution? I said I don't believe anyone can know how evolution works.or you're not going to believe in evolution?
You are misunderstanding what a macro evolutionary change is... it's just a build up of very tiny changes.Fail.
Firstly, I asked you to describe a MACRO-evolutionary transition - the changes in skin/hair colour and physical build and statue that you mention are examples of MICRO-evolution.
Secondly, you can't prove that any of the environmental pressures and their effects that you mentioned are factual - they're just figments of someone's imagination. Inventing untestable stories is not even close to knowing.
Evolution isn't scripture that describes in detail and perfection. It's an explanation for the physical evidence we found in the real world.I am a generous and reasonable man, so I won't demand a generation-by-generation description.
To get the ball rolling, how about describing just some of the steps involved in the evolution of a whale's blowhole, including how natural selection and what environmental pressures produced those steps?
Then all you have to do is demonstrate that your description is factual and not simply a figment of your imagination.
When did I say I don't believe in evolution? I said I don't believe anyone can know how evolution works.
"Generous and reasonable" and dishonest. In your previous post you requestedI am a generous and reasonable man, so I won't demand a generation-by-generation description.
which is a generation-by-generation description.Describe the steps involved and how natural selection and what environmental pressures produced each of those steps.
Description: every step was a small genetic mutation. But that's not enough for you, is it? You demand to know exactly what each mutation was, right?To get the ball rolling, how about describing just some of the steps involved in the evolution of a whale's blowhole, including how natural selection and what environmental pressures produced those steps?
??? I don't recall anyone describing how natural selection and what environmental pressures produced the steps involved in any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record.Doubling down when you've been given an explanation only makes you look blinkered and unwilling to try to understand.
Did you see the word "proof" in my post?There is plenty of evidence. The fact that you don't like or understand it doesn't mean it's not there.
Tripling down only serves to emphasise your desperation.??? I don't recall anyone describing how natural selection and what environmental pressures produced the steps involved in any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record.
I did, and on behalf of those who understand science allow me to post this response:Did you see the word "proof" in my post?
... and yet William Provine said "Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."There are many scientists who accept evolution and find it perfectly compatible with their religious faith. There are also churchmen and churchwomen (including the Pope) who also have no difficulty in accepting evolution.
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?