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.
Narrow jaws and crowded teeth are a sign of malnutrition and possibly genetics. Well nourished people generally have larger jaws, and fewer problems with tooth crowding.
My OP presents two options. You study each and make your choice. I choose creation based on my observation.
According to your links, all those things are a result of, and explained by, evolution.
But as you said yourself, you pick and choose the things that suit you and "mentally block out" the rest.
Larger brain = smaller mouth
Smaller mouth = less room for teeth
It's not rocket science.
Your OP, is invalid.
Evolution isn't something that was studied. It is something that was concluded by studying life forms.
I thought the ToE is always a 'work in progress', never "concluded". You have only concluded that it is true, regardless of the obvious possibility that it isn't.
You dont understand basic science and what it entails.
Ah, the old "You're a dishonest Christian (general cut at Christianity) routine, that hopes to cover up an incompetent reply. You'd be much better off trying to make your point of how the start of evoplution isn't part of evolution, another classic cop out due to the fact you have no explanation.That is because it doesn't.
It is childishly dishonest for 'Christian' creationists to claim that abiogenesis is part of evolution.
It isn't.
'It is in the bible, I believe it, thats that' - your particular "science."
Oh no, another assumption. What did the LUCA evolve into first? How do you know it happened?
Wow just wow, all things including spiders and cats all came from a common ancestor. So somewhere somehow there was a branch created. When did that happen? How do you KNOW it happened and how do you KNOW it possible? You continue to use assumptive reasoning. Family trees show families and groups. All it shows is how some things fit. In fact the trees cannot be traced back to an original branch. Observed data indicates that it does not happen. It's an assumption. You cannot show it ever occurring.Yes, which is not at all in contradiction with the fact that speciation is a vertical process of species evolving into 1 or more sub-species.
Birds, reptiles, mammals,... = all vertebrates, for example.
Yes, and all of them still belong to the same ancestral groups that they branched off from.
Insects didn't branch of from mammals. Dear, your knowledge on evolution is extremely lacking.
http://www.oceanographerschoice.com/log/wp-content/Evo_large.gif
Mammals and insects share ancestry as shown by the DNA, which can be visualized in phylogenetic trees. Family trees.
Here is a highly resolved and automatically generated tree of life, based on completely sequenced genomes:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg
It doesn't. Creation doesn't predict any nested hierarchies. Evolution does.
Evolution explains why you don't find mammals with feathers, creation doesn't.
Evolution explains why we share thousands of ERV's with chimps, but not as much with cats, but still more with cats then with frogs. Creation doesn't.
Evolution explains our fused chromosome and why, when split, it matches chromosome 13 of chimps. Creation doesn't.
Creation doesn't explain anything. It merely asserts based on nothing other then religious beliefs. It's entire raison d'être comes from religion.
Demonstrably false.
"Precisely"?
lol
All scientific theories, including the theory of evolution, are regarded as only provisionally true. There is no claim of absolute truth in science.I thought the ToE is always a 'work in progress', never "concluded". You have only concluded that it is true, regardless of the obvious possibility that it isn't.
View attachment 223759
No.
View attachment 223760
They are another phyla. Both spiders and cats are animalia.
It sure doesn't sound like that's true where it comes to evolution. It's taught as fact.All scientific theories, including the theory of evolution, are regarded as only provisionally true. There is no claim of absolute truth in science.
No, it's a reasonable inference which is not contradicted by any available evidence. That's all, and there is at the present time no credible alternative inference.Wow just wow, all things including spiders and cats all came from a common ancestor. So somewhere somehow there was a branch created. When did that happen? How do you KNOW it happened and how do you KNOW it possible? You continue to use assumptive reasoning. Family trees show families and groups. All it shows is how some things fit. In fact the trees cannot be traced back to an original branch. Observed data indicates that it does not happen. It's an assumption. You cannot show it ever occurring.
If you can find a school where the theory of evolution is taught as a fact, let me know and I will help you denounce them.It sure doesn't sound like that's true where it comes to evolution. It's taught as fact.
Ah, the old "You're a dishonest Christian (general cut at Christianity) routine, that hopes to cover up an incompetent reply. You'd be much better off trying to make your point of how the start of evoplution isn't part of evolution, another classic cop out due to the fact you have no explanation.
Makes a lot more sense than "You're particular science" of, "It started somewhere" and we'll make up the rest, then blame it on science, not yourselves, while claiming we can't argue with science.
More much needed self made convenience for the losing end.
And that my friend, is that.
Mere assertions.
OK - let me pick... the human obturator foramen*.
Please provide evidence that it was created.
Specialized tissues are not molecules.
But tell us all, exactly, which molecules associated with the obturator foramen were created and provide the evidence for this. Tell me about the inductive processes that produced the specialized tissues associated with it, and show me the evidence that those processes and tissues were created.
Merely saying they were does not count. And do not engage in the burden shifting fallacy by demanding I prove they were not created. YOU claimed they were created, now show that you have more than overconfident assertions.
Abiogenesis =|= evolution.
Via the acquisition or the altered expression of genes. A Genetics class will cure your ignorance of this.
Argument from personal incredulity coupled with burden shifting fallacy.
You could not support your assertions for even ONE exchange.
I suspect next you will bring out the bible verses?
I'm sure you laugh about it. You seem to laugh at lots of things you don't get.Evidence Is Mounting That Routine Wisdom Teeth Removal Is a Waste of Time
I still have mine, no problems. My dentist wanted to pull them years ago as they will eventually "give you trouble" he said. They never have and we laugh about it today.
Typical ad hom punctuation I've come to expect. Grow up.
Now, weren't you going to continue going through the rest of my examples?
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?