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.
. You get the same hierarchy if you group species by the presence of hair, amnion, three middle ear bones, feathers, backbones, etc.
-_- convergent evolution is determined via genetics and body structure.
Cars don't have genes.
Furthermore, concerning cars with jet parts, they can't exist BEFORE jets do. Transitions lose their meaning if the time frame of their existence doesn't start in between the time frame of the existences of the subjects they are supposed to be a transition for.
Vehicles can't evolve because they aren't alive, they don't have genetic material, they don't reproduce.
If we can find a car with a parachute and a plane with a parachute, then all planes and all cars should have a parachute. They don't.
But then we learn that we can look inside the wings and see how they are constructed. Perhaps they are constructed very differently?
We know that the eye has developed multiple times.
How Humans And Squid Evolved To Have The Same Eyes
No, that's not what I'm saying.
The ancestor of the species between them could have lost the gene somewhere between the gene evolving and the present.
What I'm saying is that you can't have a shared trait on a branch where it did not evolve in.
An population develops hair. Hair should only show up in the descendants of that population.
not in many cases. many traits break the hierarchy, and when that happened they just call it convergent evolution or gene loss. so your claim about "fantasy world" is a fantasy by itself.
you can call it anything you want. i already explained why even a case with a real hierarchy will not prove any evolution.
if we will find a reptile with hair they will claim for convergent evolution. simple.
After how man tries?If the distribution of features matches what evolution would produce,
right. we can find many cases without an hierarchy. so if hierarchy is evidence for a comon descent then non hierarchy should be evidence against it.
if we will find a reptile with hair they will claim for convergent evolution. simple.
Ow my...
A deletion event doesn't break any nested hierarchies. Why is this so hard to understand?
I told you what would break it:
- a mammal with feathers
- a reptile with an inner-earbone
- ...
Ow my...
A deletion event doesn't break any nested hierarchies. Why is this so hard to understand?
Nah.I told you what would break it:
- a mammal with feathers
- a reptile with an inner-earbone
- ...
Examples?
even if we will find it in vehicles?Why not? If the distribution of features matches what evolution would produce, then why isn't that evidence for evolution?
here:
View attachment 206794
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1685/20150041.figures-only
the suppose hierarchy is falling apart.
Ow my...A deletion event doesn't break any nested hierarchies. Why is this so hard to understand?
I told you what would break it:
Nah.
Scientists would just coin a term for it on paper and include it in their paradigms.
Like: monotreme, cryptid, transitional ...
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?