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.
lol, of course! How could I be so blind...Obviously the clam didn't start by having a little fish like bait, it evolved that bait. For eons it projected a stick like structure, but that didn't work, then for another few million millennium it mimicked an eel, but that simple scared the bass away. Finally after billions of years it got a nub of a minnow like structure that neither helped nor hindered it, this then evolved into the fully developed clam we see today. Simple!
By the way I hope KS doesn't stand for Kitten Squeezer..
Also, one thing that creationists frequently argue is that they admit to micro evolution, but macro evolution is somehow impossible.
Some extra skin for control -> automatically to design of gliders, while there is no transition, because there is no direction being guided to that by either mutations or natural selection.
Yes I do, but extra skin doesn't give an extra jump... it needs to be in certain way for it to give glide (extended jump).
a 1/1000 wing is totally useless for controlled falling.
To develop a wing/glider cannot happen istaneaously. And yes, there has to be a bunch of small changes to that. Little wider, or some skin growing on the side, doesn't reduce anything, and has practically no difference. However, even it does, it will not be leading towards gliders, it's not heading to that direction. They are two different directions. Although gliding does help with fall, it won't be that what helps in fall, leads to design in gliding. In fall, it maybe develop more powerful body to take impact, but there is no way this going to lead to development of a gliding mechanism, that will lead to a wing. This is just skipping, putting something on the side, that gives gliding, is not logical, because biology doesn't work like this. It doesn't just produce features that weren't there. Mutations just jumble what is there, it doesn't bring a whole new thing. So this is not logical. Your putting the transition from that to that, when it's not logically possible, because it's not improving in gliding and reducing in fall, doesn't make towards gliding. The body if just becomes wider or what not, and reduces practically nothing of the fall, it is not leaning towards gliding. Also, how does it make sense, that it improves on this, over other features, like, I dunno, maybe not falling? Don't you think those would have better chance of surviving then those that keep falling?Just a note: small changes in genotype can produce some dramatic changes in phenotype. There's no rule in biology that changes in wing length may only progress in small exact measures.
Also if you look at bees, your see their flight has nothing to with gliding type flying at all. It's super super fast stuff they do that makes them fly.
If you bothered to actually care about the argument
I think this paragraph really outlines the level of your knowledge on this topic. I would advise you actually go and study evolution, because you're consistently bringing up points that have already been refuted.
If it's been refuted, you can bring the refutation. Otherwise, appeal to unknown books with unknown explanations as having an answer is not an argument.
If you are well versed with it, then go ahead and answer it. Every evolution book I read just goes the vague skipping too much route like everyone here is doing.
AskThe Family please would you mind answering my question.AskTheFamily, may I ask who told you that evolution was impossible? was it someone who knew what they were talking about or was it someone who wanted you to believe in God?
Strange how even the children in the video understood the relevance which you continue to fail to grasp.I veiwed your video and I found nothing relevant.
LOL wut? He proves what Zoot and other have been saying with a experiment demonstrated to the view/audience. And what the heck are you talking about with superheros? Dawkins is a biologist, you know a scientist. The type of person you asked to refute you, which he has.If you want to bring his argument, you can bring it here and put in your words. Or you can talk about your super heroes as if they explained everything and people are welcome to believe you.
Shame you have yet to show how he is wrong in his demonstration. Your willful ignorance is the only thing that is evident.Richard Dawkins books and words are full of logical fallacies all the time, if you have any logical argument you learned from him, go ahead and bring it.
You watched the videos that contained the refutations and you chose to ignore them. I don't need to repeat them for you - watch them and refute them if they are so obviously wrong.
Shame you have yet to show how he is wrong in his demonstration.
Alright Sith, you don't need to repeat, and I don't need to repeat my arguments in this thread either.
If you want to put in your own words and address what I have said, and show how it refutes what I have said, your more then welcome to. But till then, I am going to assume you have not comprehended my argument at all because that is what it seems like.
Why do I need to put it in my own words when all that would mean is that I am repeating the video? The videos refuted the argument, I don't need to repeat them. The videos demonstrated how '1/100 wing' could be beneficial to an organism, which refutes your argument that it wouldn't be. Now, if you'd like to demonstrate how the video is wrong, then we might all be able to actually have a debate.
I've comprehended your argument perfectly, because I've seen it plenty of times. It's the result of you not understanding that 1/1000 of a wing is a nonsense statement that means nothing.
So - we've refuted your arguments, now it's your turn. How are the videos incorrect?
I veiwed your video and I found nothing relevant.
The creationist answer to that is, they just are because I was told they are.How are the videos incorrect?
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?