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.
Science is like the soup of the day or the flavor of the week. If you do not like what is on the menu today then stop back tomorrow. Everything will be new and you can have a whole new selection to choose from. IF you do not offer people new choices you will soon be out of business.
Science is like the soup of the day or the flavor of the week. If you do not like what is on the menu today then stop back tomorrow. Everything will be new and you can have a whole new selection to choose from. IF you do not offer people new choices you will soon be out of business.
Your mutations to every Mastiff and every Husky has never even changed its genotype. Its always clearly distinguishable for what it is. Yet direct empirical observations have shown you the simple act of interbreeding can not only change its phenotype, but change its breed type as well. Its genotype if you like as the Chinook is easily distinguished genetically from all others.There is no double talk. It's just basic understanding of the difference between the phenotype versus the genotype of an organism. I mean, you *do* know the difference, don't you?
Especially when considering a basic definition of evolution as a change in allele frequencies within a population over time. The basic definition of evolution applies to the genotype. There is nothing that mandates changes to phenotype. It just happens in some cases and clearly not as much in others.
Science, not PR, there's a difference.And yet, you enjoy the benefits from science, every hour of every day of your life.
The Chinook is not the basis of the theory of evolution. Your fixation on this particular breed is puzzling.Your mutations to every Mastiff and every Husky has never even changed its genotype. Its always clearly distinguishable for what it is. Yet direct empirical observations have shown you the simple act of interbreeding can not only change its phenotype, but change its breed type as well. Its genotype if you like as the Chinook is easily distinguished genetically from all others.
Your question is a poorly phrased run-on sentence. Take some time to re-word it and ask again later.
The Chinook is what you believe evolution to be. Your ignoring this clear change in form from interbreeding instead of never observed mutation is what is puzzling......The Chinook is not the basis of the theory of evolution. Your fixation on this particular breed is puzzling.
A Mastiff is a Mastiff and a Husky is a Husky. And yet they are related, and you have no problem with that. They are descended from wolves, and you have no problem with that. And yet, you deny that there must have been transitional forms between the wolf and the Mastiff, the wolf and the Husky. How do you think these breeds came about?
Yes you offered the argument B362 and they gave you the counter argument xy2z. We can save time if we just assign a number to the argument and the counter argument.
The watchmaker argument actually goes back to Isaac Newton back in the 1600's: "that the physical laws he had uncovered (René Descartes), revealed the mechanical perfection of the workings of the universe to be akin to a watchmaker, wherein the watchmaker is God." William Dembski's intelligent designer is just a variation of the watchmaker argument.
More recently Hoyle claimed that that the chance of a random mutation is so slim as to make the whole argument meaningless. Their response to that is "not true, not true, not true" and they offer nothing in the way of a counter argument to show that his math is not substantial.
Thats what convinced me too! When I saw Mastiff and Husky mate and give birth to the Chinook, which appeared where it was never found before. Why an actual observable change in form, and yet the Husky and Mastiff puppies despite all their mutations remained Husky and Mastiff. Just like in the fossil record.That's exactly what convinced me!
They claim mutations, yet despite every mastiff puppy born with mutations it always remains a Mastiff. Despite every Husky puppy born it remains a Husky.
I get to be "accusatory" because all this stuff has been explained to you time and again, yet you repeat the same stuff that so many people have already corrected you on.
Exactly as evolution expects. You are pretending evolution would expect crockoducks. It wouldn't.
Except the logical progression of the fossil record, with no exceptions, and just about everything we know and understand about genetics, like phylogenetic trees etc.
Evolution predicts one very specific pattern.
And it is a pattern that would NOT result from distinct "creation" events (unless extra special care is given to have that pattern emerge on purpose).
And it is exactly that pattern that we find in living things.
Any other pattern would have falsified evolution.
ps: that pattern is the nested hierarchy, but you know that off course, as that too, has been explained to you countless times.
Your mutations to every Mastiff and every Husky has never even changed its genotype.
And I am the unreasonable one???????
I get to be "accusatory" because all this stuff has been explained to you time and again, yet you repeat the same stuff that so many people have already corrected you on.
Exactly as evolution expects. You are pretending evolution would expect crockoducks. It wouldn't.
Except the logical progression of the fossil record, with no exceptions, and just about everything we know and understand about genetics, like phylogenetic trees etc.
Evolution predicts one very specific pattern.
And it is a pattern that would NOT result from distinct "creation" events (unless extra special care is given to have that pattern emerge on purpose).
And it is exactly that pattern that we find in living things.
Any other pattern would have falsified evolution.
ps: that pattern is the nested hierarchy, but you know that off course, as that too, has been explained to you countless times.
That would prove evolution because that is evolution from a common ancestor.That would falsify evolution.
Together, you
called baby and adults of the same exact species separate species, all to support your theory that speciation occurs.
Your claimed based upon similarity fails since those babies and adults were almost exactly similar. I mean please, is that your best response?
I am saying if you cant even get babies and adults of the same species correct that are almost identical, what makes you assume they got all those subspecies they have classified as separate species correct?
Yah, lets cut open its bones and see how that claim pans out...... Again, you proved my point, if its slightly different its a new species, without any consideration as to if its just a subspecies. Because the discoverer of a subspecies doesnt get their name written in the books....
Ignore history at your peril.
The Spiral Nebulae and the Great Debate | Astronomy 801: Planets, Stars, Galaxies, and the Universe
"In 1750 Thomas Wright, in his work An original theory or new hypothesis of the Universe, correctly speculated that the Milky Way might be a body of a huge number of stars held together by gravitational forces rotating about a Galactic Center, akin to the solar system but on a much larger scale. The resulting disk of stars can be seen as a band on the sky from our perspective inside the disk.[17] In a treatise in 1755, Immanuel Kant elaborated on Wright's idea about the structure of the Milky Way. At the time, the existence of other galaxies had not been discovered."
At the time all was thought to be contained in the Milky-Way.
Your lies wont change history.....
Because you dont even know the history of your own evolutionary theory.
All you ever read is what they say today. You fail to realize that for years the colecanth was touted to be the transitory example of water to land animals. You dont hear it today because the living one falsified it.
So now you want me to believe that the monkeys tail was fully formed? Or the modern eye?
By fully formed I mean you see no transitional forms between one and the next, excepot those you incorrectly classify as transitional.
Really? Show me the gradual in the Cambrian explosion? Or the gradual from one layer to the next?
I am sorry, forgive me, I didnt realize you had DNA from dinosaurs that you could compare to those alive today to make such a claim of sharing markers......
You shouldnt beliueve everything you are told by PR specialists. Do your research and you will find that E coli could always metabolize citrus. The only thing that changed was that abiklity was changed to dominance so it could metabolize it fully.
I thought you said earlier that dogs remain dogs, peas, peas and fruit flies fruit flies? I think you already answered that, but are just double-talking now so you can change your mind later if necessary. Since they still call it E coli, I guess it does mean its still E coli.
But could always metabolize citrus. It simply adapted due to the fact it was given no other food source.
"The most striking adaptation reported so far is the evolution of aerobic growth on citrate, which is unusual in E. coli,"
Unusual, not non-existant.
So YOU say.
"Two distinct variants, S and L,"
Hmm, variants, can we all say subspecies?
Even your so called experts dont go as far as you.
"Phylogenetic analysis of clones of the two types isolated from different generations demonstrated that the S and L types belonged to distinct, co-existing lineages in the population, and might be undergoing incipient speciation."
And pigs misght fly too if they had wings.
Because in every respect those E coli are the same except for one gene being expressed as a dominant gene.
Ahh, you mean you interpret a tiny change as meaning entire new species can arise, even when the authors clearly stated that this might be leading to speciation, but didnt show speciation was possible.
I mean even if bacteria dont evolve it proves evolution, thats how desparate its become....
Scientists discover organism that hasn’t evolved in more than 2 billion years
Didn't think so.Single creatures don't evolve.
Populations do. And things like wings don't evolve in a single generation.
So, no.
No moving goal posts here. Show me a creature where that happened. Someone already beat you to the punch by saying it didn't.Just answer the question first; yes or no? Otherwise I suspect your goalpost will move.
That would prove evolution because that is evolution from a common ancestor.
So we haven't and are not observing the process even now. That's what I am saying the only reason you can make the claim that it happens is because it supposedly takes so many years. It's kind of difficult to show something is in error when it takes so long to happen no one can say it didn't.So, you want to observe a process that takes many lifetimes to unfold?
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?