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.
and yet this is what we found in a designed objects like vehicles.
why not? they appearing according to time scale abd get more complex. this is a nested hierarchy.
Oh, my!
That would be one doosey of a response!
Banned? not suspended first?
Go directly to JAIL, do not pass GO?
I think you get suspended two or three times first -- then banned.
Unless you post something REALLY unchristian.
No, it's not what we find in manufactured productlines, at all.
It seems you have no idea what a nested hierarchy is.
But they do not reproduce themselves; they have neither reproductive systems nor hereditary material, therefore they cannot evolve. That is the whole point; that is why your analogy fails.
If we could produce a manufactured object with hereditary material that was able to reproduce itself, it would, of course, still be designed. However, it would be designed with the ability to evolve.but i asking what if they able to do this? in this case you will claim that they evolved from each other or not?
Evolution is changes in populations of organisms over time. Species is just a label we apply to organisms to categorize them. Living organisms do not actually neatly fit into the categories we make for them, so evolution is never defined by species, genus, etc boundaries. It wouldn't make sense to even define it that way, because evolution isn't limited in how much change can occur, as long as enough generations have passed.OK, then do I understand correctly that "evolution" only applies to change within a species? Does it not have to start with something before there can be a species in any category?
Time-wise, no. However, an unfortunate mistake people often make due to these charts is assuming that these fossil organisms are definitive ancestors of modern organisms. Unless we have DNA for the purpose of comparison, this is actually impossible to determine. What fossils are mostly good for is the demonstration of concept, as well as the history of evolutionary developments (such as when the first mammals began to appear on Earth).Horse evolution seems to come up quite often but the chart I was referred to seems to show it starting with Eohippus and ending with Equus caballus is that in error?
Not in the slightest, evolution is a continuous process (though, various factors can influence how fast it is, which is why some populations of organisms seem to have changed very little compared to others). In fact, the conditions needed to halt it are currently impossible to produce, since it demands eliminating mutations and changes in the environment entirely.Does that mean it started with Eohippus and ended with Equus caballus and there was no evolution before and has been none since?
and we do find such hierarchy in nature? can you give an example?
Are you totally incapable of doing your own research? I Googled "Nested Hierarchies" and this was literally the first result.and we do find such hierarchy in nature? can you give an example?
we will see about that. but first lets see if we find such an hierarchy in nature.
Are you totally incapable of doing your own research? I Googled "Nested Hierarchies" and this was literally the first result.
Nested hierarchies
and we do find such hierarchy in nature?
can you give an example?
we will see about that. but first lets see if we find such an hierarchy in nature.
so if you will find a self replicating car with dna. you will have no problem to claim that it's just evolved?If we could produce a manufactured object with hereditary material that was able to reproduce itself, it would, of course, still be designed. However, it would be designed with the ability to evolve.
I find your habit of answering to posts with "So....?", and then inserting something that neither has been said nor implied nor does in any way follow from what has been said, highly annoying.so if you will find a self replicating car with dna. you will have no problem to claim that it's just evolved?
so if you will find a self replicating car with dna. you will have no problem to claim that it's just evolved?
Shared derived features are shared by the branches coming from a node. Designed things, like cars, buildings, and paintings, do not follow this pattern. For example, a designer could mix features from mammals and birds to make a new category of life. Such a group of creatures would violate a nested hierarchy and falsify evolution, but there is nothing stopping a designer from creating these violations of a nested hierarchy. The only reason we would expect to see this pattern of shared derived features is if these species groups evolved from a common ancestor.
Yes.
You won't find any of this in non-mammals.
Just like you won't find non-mammals with inner earbones or mammals with feathers.
another problem is that we can find cases with hierarchy also in man-made objects:
nice try. but we can find the same in vehicles, as you can see here. but it doesnt prove any common descent.
Isn't that called "intelligent design"?Your pictures aren't loading on my screen, but it is rather easy to show that there are numerous violations of a nested hierarchy for cars. For example, you can find the same tire on a Chevy car and a Ford car, but two different tires on the same model of Ford car. You can find the same engine in a specific Toyota car and Toyota pickup, but two different engines in two cars from the same Toyota car model. There are massive numbers of violations in a nested hierarchy of cars.
Isn't that called "intelligent design"?
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?