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.
true. so in this case below you will claim that they indeed evolved from a common descent?:
View attachment 207669
Is the conclusion of a scientific theory. Not "just a theory", which introduces a judgement of value.1. Is just a theory.
Is a scientific theory.2. Is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.
Is anathema to a literal reading of the Bible.3. Is anathema to the Bible.
Has produced observable effects.4. Cannot be observed.
Is solidly supported by evidence.5. Is mistaken as a result of microevolution.
Who did doesn't matter. What matters is by what evidence it is supported. An as such it is very well supported.6. Was forged by a runaway, who later made a deathbed confession.
Nope. It was simultanously formulated by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. Neither of them being devilish.7. Is a lie of the Devil.
Nope. It refers to the evolution of species and is as such only relevant to biology.8. Is 1 of 7 types of cosmic evolution.
Looking around, it is defended by people like Richard Dawkins who are aggressive against all religion, people like me who are rather indifferent to religion, christians like Ken Liller, ordained ministers like Robert Bakker and even by recent converts like Francis Collins.9. Is defended by some who are very aggressive against Christianity.
If Wikipedia is correct then Australia has had bats for a while, and also some rodents for a whileso if we will find a (old) fossil of a placental mammal in australia evolution will be false?
Rodents first arrived in Australia 5 to 10 mya and underwent a wide radiation to produce the species collectively known as the "old endemics" rodents. The old endemics are represented by 14 extant genera. About a million years ago, the rat entered Australia from New Guinea and evolved into seven species of Rattus, collectively called the "new endemics".
Then by all means, Kylie, employ this scientific method and answer his questions with better answers than I gave.
Need the questions again? here they are:
And here are my answers again:
Now ... let's see better answers, compliments of the scientific method ... instead of no answers, accompanied by ridicule of my answers.
Then they are dumb questions?The answer that the scientific method leads me to is this:
It's a fable and never actually happened.
I also gave an example of a mammal with a jellyfish gene with an identical sequence as that found in the jellyfish. When referring to genes, not features, you need to compare the sequence.
If Wikipedia is correct then Australia has had bats for a while, and also some rodents for a while
If god created creatures fully formed, why does the fossil record show a migration and evolution pattern (of similar creatures having branched out over time) rather than a seemingly random pattern?
Do you deny that we pass on DNA to our offspring? Do you deny that sometimes there are "mistakes" in our passed on DNA? Do you deny that some of those mistakes lead to an offspring that is less fit for survival and procreation? Do you deny that some of those mistakes lead to an offspring that is more fit for survival and procreation? Which aspect of this is it that you have issues with?
No, because you ignored how I said cars differ from living organisms. Like I said, you can't stick wings on a bearded dragon and make a bird out of it, but you can change a car into an airplane. One of the rules of evolution is that individual organisms do not evolve; populations do. You can't have a transition like that within a single generation of living organisms. But, one can easily change a car's parts. This is another way by which cars and living things are not comparable. -_- also, there are more differences between cars and airplanes than just wings.true. so in this case below you will claim that they indeed evolved from a common descent?:
View attachment 207669
-_- vertebrate eyes, I suppose is what you are trying to say, seeing as those would be most relevant to humans. There are plenty of different eye lineages to choose from, though. Why share so many eye flaws when other organisms don't have these flaws?i refer to the types of eyes that indeed suppose to share a common eye.
No, the island species will not be fruit flies, since the can't mate anymore with the fruit flies. Being able to mate and to have fertile offspring is one the features of a species.This is a simplified model of speciation by geographic isolation, but it gives an idea of some of the processes that might be at work in speciation. In most real-life cases, we can only put together part of the story from the available evidence. However, the evidence that this sort of process does happen is strong.]
- An example of "speciation".
- [The scene: a population of wild fruit flies minding its own business on several bunches of rotting bananas, cheerfully laying their eggs in the mushy fruit...
- Disaster strikes: A hurricane washes the bananas and the immature fruit flies they contain out to sea. The banana bunch eventually washes up on an island off the coast of the mainland. The fruit flies mature and emerge from their slimy nursery onto the lonely island. The two portions of the population, mainland and island, are now too far apart for gene flow to unite them. At this point, speciation has not occurred — any fruit flies that got back to the mainland could mate and produce healthy offspring with the mainland flies.
- The populations diverge: Ecological conditions are slightly different on the island, and the island population evolves under different selective pressures and experiences different random events than the mainland population does. Morphology, food preferences, and courtship displays change over the course of many generations of natural selection.
- So we meet again: When another storm reintroduces the island flies to the mainland, they will not readily mate with the mainland flies since they've evolved different courtship behaviors. The few that do mate with the mainland flies, produce inviable eggs because of other genetic differences between the two populations. The lineage has split now that genes cannot flow between the populations.
Download the graphics on this page from the Image library.
Guess what, they are still fruit flies, that have adapted to their environment. I love learning about evolution.
since homolgous trait base on homolous gene, this claim can be falsified too. an identical gene in both jellyfish and human will not falsified evolution.
The flies or Diptera is an oder that contains 125.000 species. Evolution happens through speciation.Yep, and every time I looked they were still flies. I could not even find where one of them evolved into a chicken.
Then they are dumb questions?
If so, why did he ask them?
I personally thought they were good ones.
No, because you ignored how I said cars differ from living organisms.
-_- vertebrate eyes, I suppose is what you are trying to say, seeing as those would be most relevant to humans. There are plenty of different eye lineages to choose from, though. Why share so many eye flaws when other organisms don't have these flaws?
no. you asked for homologous trait and i gave you one. if it's indeed a scientific theory- evolution should be false now.I already said that it would falsify evolution. If ID/creationism is true, why wouldn't we find an identical gene with identical sequence in a single mammal species and in jellyfish, but not find that same sequence in any other mammal?
Which does not exist. Hypothetical items get you nowhere.but i refer to a car with a living traits like self replication.
-_- vertebrate eyes are backwards, which is the reason why vertebrates have blind spots and other vision flaws. How would this not be considered a flaw when we see eyes in nature without this problem?who said it's a flaw?
no. you asked for homologous trait and i gave you one. if it's indeed a scientific theory- evolution should be false now.
-_- vertebrate eyes are backwards, which is the reason why vertebrates have blind spots and other vision flaws. How would this not be considered a flaw when we see eyes in nature without this problem?
I can't even look at this article's sources, much less finish it, without paying, so you better provide a primary source.actually this trait improve vision:
Evolution gave flawed eye better vision
"IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision."
Here’s Why Your Eyes Seem to Be Wired 'Backward' | Smart News | Smithsonian
This article I can read in full, but it has no primary sources cited. Are you allergic to reliable sources? It's not my job to look through the sources an article has to see if it is legitimate, that's on you, but I can't even do that for you."So there must be a good reason for the "backwards" structure, Ribak thought.And there is. It helps us see in color better"
-_- again, that would mean that the frontward retinas are the flawed design with no point to existing. Same designer means there should be the same, best eye design in every organism that needs to see. And there shouldn't be eyes wasted on organisms that don't even need to see, like bats.so this suppose "flaw" isnt a flaw at all. as we can expect under the design model and not at all under the evolutionery one.
actually this trait improve vision:
Evolution gave flawed eye better vision
"IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision."
Here’s Why Your Eyes Seem to Be Wired 'Backward' | Smart News | Smithsonian
"So there must be a good reason for the "backwards" structure, Ribak thought.And there is. It helps us see in color better"
so this suppose "flaw" isnt a flaw at all. as we can expect under the design model and not at all under the evolutionery one.
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?