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.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
That's because there didn't seem to be much more to say about the original topic. No one, it seems, could think of anything additional that scientists should be doing to inform people about science. So what else is there to discuss?*laughs* Any chance of this topic getting back on topic? :> This was about more, "Do scientists do enough to inform people about science>" and instead turned into argument from incorrect definition...
And that's probably the fastest that phenotypic evolution gets under "natural" mechanisms. I'd say it's a lot faster than good old Charles Darwin ever expected, but it's still not fast enough to make cats out of dogs in an observable period.
Don't they come from a common ancestor, though? via the hydrological cycle?As creationists (our most recent trophy included) often make this strawman argument about evolution, I would advise the utmost care never to even hint at such a possibility.
There is absolutely NO WAY that by evolution the currently existing species of "cats" can ever come from the currently existing species of "dogs".
There could be, at some future point, descendants of dogs that resembles in every possible way our current cats.... but these wouldn´t be classified as belonging to our current "cat" species.
I don´t understand the reference to the hydrological cycle, but yes, they did come from a common ancestor.Don't they come from a common ancestor, though? via the hydrological cycle?
Doesn't it rain cats and dogs?I don´t understand the reference to the hydrological cycle, but yes, they did come from a common ancestor.
Oh, sorry --Not in Germany.
The "anti-science movement" is a product of those too lazy or too stupid to learn what science has to teach, and too arrogant to admit to being too lazy or too stupid.
YesBut do you now understand why it is biologically meaningless to talk about "cats from dogs"?
That's okay, we understand what you Internet scientists think of us plebeians.EDIT - the filter is a bit keen, I only said [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]
As as you have been shown, this is a false assertion. If you disagree - as you obviously do - PROVE IT.
Have a GREAT weekend, bro and a HAPpy Thanksgiving!um, I did.
What part of 'Only something eternal can solve infinite regression.' do you not understand?
Easy. Amniotes existed before chickens
Say, wouldn't it be cool if you guys could do the whole find-actual-evidence thing with the bible too? That'd be swell, huh?
The "anti-science movement" is a product of those too lazy or too stupid to learn what science has to teach, and too arrogant to admit to being too lazy or too stupid.
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?