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.
Looks like we finally, sort of, agree on something. Since cars were intelligently designed, they won't fit into a phylogenetic tree like living creatures do -- the graph of car designs wouldn't look like the "tree of life".
Unless a sudden, unexpected catastrophy comes along (an asteroid crashing into Earth for example), animals which manage to breed successfully obviously aren't on the road to extinction.
I'm not sure which DNR website you mean either. I'm guessing it's not "Do Not Resuscitate'.
According to the theory of evolution/common descent, (name a creature) evolved into (name another creature) within the time frame of (amount of time). The evidence I would expect to see were this true, is (number of distinct intermediate fossils [taking into account the number of species there are, the completeness of fossils discovered, and the number of fossils discovered to date]). Alternately, I might expect to see (description of trait) evolve under laboratory conditions of (describe) with a population size of (number) over (number) generations.
Except you have already admitted fitness isn't simply that which survives it is the traits that enable it to survive.That's what it means! I explained it. "Fitness" is that which survives.
Fitness = that which survives
Fitness to survive = that which survives.
That which survives survives.
Sure you, did you replaced fitness and the traits responsible for fitness and put the result of those traits on both sides to build a tautology.Nothing re-arranged at all.
Sure if you stick you fingers in you ears and go 'la la la'.Which means that which surives survives
What is a 'trait for fitness' is unknown. All one can know is that the animal itself was 'fit' to survive because it survived.
Not many polar bears in Antarctica. Besides you are making the very basic mistake of thinking if a trait would be advantageous it has to evolve. It needs to be present in the gene pool to be selected.Like Penguins?
Adult seals are most exposed to predators in the water, when they are on the the ice they are usually within easy reach of water to escape from land predators.Seals?
Not sure naked Inuit are often seen by predators.Eskimo?
I didn't say you had to outrun the leopard, you just have to outrun your chubby friend.Not all creatures escape leopards by out-running them. Some can fly away, others can go into burrows.
Not sure anyone has a random car name generator, though it would explain some of the names. But that has nothing to do with the simple fact you cannot create a phylogenetic tree for cars. And the fact you cannot fit car into a twin nested hierarchy the way you can with living creatures shows the difference between design and evolution. You may not be able to understand it, you may think the only possible reason for it to be true would be a random car name generator. But reality is not limited by your imagination, and unfortunately life does fit a twin nested hierarchy while car design simply doesn't.You miss the point. Someone is arguing that what happens in nature isn't arbitrary.
It is, that's the nature of nature.
Conversely they suggested that a thought out collection of cars to show evolution is arbitrary.
It could only be if a person had some kind of random car name generator and it spewed out names randomly
I tough fur was out of fashion now, they still carry out the cull to stop the competition for fish stocks, nothing to do with the colour of their fur. Does Greenpeace still dye the seals green, or was it just in the 70s and 80s? Isn't that kind of a short time for them to evolve a completely different fur colour?Having white fur made them targeted by seal fur hunters so having white fur was not an advantage.
Those wishing to save them threw green dye on the seal cubs.
Again all you are doing is showing a complete lack of understanding about evolution. Wouldn't they need a mutation that produces a green pigment before it could be selected? Not sure green would be a terribly good colour for a seal anyway.So one should be arguing that having green fur would be an advantage!
And have pups of their own who have white fur when white is an advantage.And of course you example against your own argument about having white fur anyway, because this is only a temporary covering for them, so they lose that 'advantage' and still survive.
No it is a conclusion from what we know about evolution and natural selection. Nor is it circular reasoning to realise a white seal pup is harder for a polar bear to spot than a brown one.But it's circular reasoning to suppose that whatever it is that they have is an advantage
According to the theory of evolution/common descent, (name a creature) evolved into (name another creature) within the time frame of (amount of time). The evidence I would expect to see were this true, is (number of distinct intermediate fossils [taking into account the number of species there are, the completeness of fossils discovered, and the number of fossils discovered to date]). Alternately, I might expect to see (description of trait) evolve under laboratory conditions of (describe) with a population size of (number) over (number) generations.You don't even see that much. You have to pretend.
(Unless that is, you consider bacteria that changes into different species of ...guess what(?) ....bacteria. Flies that transform into different types of ...guess what(?)...flies; moths changing into different types of....guess what(?)...moths; or rodents turning into different types of ....guess what(?)...need I go further?
So you don't understand the theory of evolution, and apparently don't realize that you can even try to understand it despite not believing it? Can't even fill in the blanks, for what a prediction of the theory of evolution/common descent would look like, and what evidence there should be if it were true?
I take it that you are one of those people who can't answer "If all Bleeps were Gloops, and all Gloops were Praps, then ..." because they're all nonesense words and you don't do hypotheticals?
they decide to attack the quotes of what Mendel said...knowing full well he was a creationist and did not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. How can we know that Mendel said those things and that the quotes represent his true position? Answer: by the preponderance of information available on the subject.
Dear friends,
"So you don't understand the theory of evolution..."
Poor me. I am an ex-evolutionist who defended evolution vigorously.
I taught biology for nearly thirty years & studied the subject 45 yrs. Yet this person says I don't understand it.
Did you know that it is against the rules of the site to question the Christianity of a member?
My answer to theistic errorists here:
Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.
To the rest of you I will be glad to answer the questions that have been raised.
I didn't claim that. I claimed that if a species is thriving, the only thing which would suddenly wipe it our would be a major natural disaster. Asteroids generally don't change DNA.Kirkwhisper said:Secondly, give evidence that any asterioid or any other global tragedy changed the DNA of existing biological life.
I didn't claim that. I claimed that if a species is thriving, the only thing which would suddenly wipe it our would be a major natural disaster. Asteroids generally don't change DNA.
It's hard to take your word for it when you write silly things like this:Kirkwhisper said:Poor me. I am an ex-evolutionist who defended evolution vigorously. I taught biology for nearly thirty years & studied the subject 45 yrs. Yet this person says I don't understand it.
Kirkwhisper said:The same with canines. There is quite a bit of differential expression in the genes of dogs but one will never see nature produce this:
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?