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.
So you're just coming up with your own nonsense terms. Got it.
Probably from The Handbook of Fatuous Nonsense for Beginners.That's not how evolution works.
Where are you getting these ideas about evolution from?
That's not how evolution works.
Where are you getting these ideas about evolution from?
That's not how evolution works.
Where are you getting these ideas about evolution from?
LOL.
Why couldn't it happen in a similar way to the picture I posted? You've got a vivid imagination.
Or more likely a POE.
Is that like those "Alternate Facts" that creationists talk about? The rest of us just call them lies.I call it......"Alternate State"
So if we entertain your erroneous definitions for a moment, where would the incompatible ends of a ring species fit into this, would those changes in alleles be adaptation or evolution?Within species it is adaptation, not evolution.
....soooo.... really then, we could just call them differences - the fact remains that regardless what you want to call it, it does involve changes in alleles in a population, the very definition of evolution.We need to drfine our terms properly. Species is kind. The fish after its kind, the dog after its kind, the cat after its kind.
Species is kind. Inter species mutations is adaptation, is not evolution.
In actual fact, Cetateans (dolphins, whales, etc.) came from land mammals adapting to life in the water, if you could imagine something bigger than an otter progressing to a carnivorous version of a hippo, progressing to something like a seal/walrus/manatee ==>eventually whale, then that is the progression you would see over the past 50 million or so years of its evolution.Inevitably they would be an inbetween species, that is a transmutation, if we take Evolution Theory at its assertion that a mineralised rock became a whale and a whale developed legs and walked on land to become a primal man.
You, my friend, totally and completely fail at understanding what the Theory of Evolution is. This is imagination unless you can point out where this might fit in the tree of life?Where are these.....
Is that like the term "Alternate Facts"? The rest of us just call them lies.
So if we entertain your erroneous definitions for a moment, where would the incompatible ends of a ring species fit into this, would those changes in alleles be adaptation or evolution?
soooo.... really then, we could just call them differences - the fact remains that regardless what you want to call it, it does involve changes in alleles in a population, the very definition of evolution.
In actual fact, Cetateans (dolphins, whales, etc.) came from land mammals adapting to life in the water, if you could imagine something bigger than an otter progressing to a carnivorous version of a hippo, progressing to something like a seal/walrus/manatee ==>eventually whale, then that is the progression you would see over the past 50 million or so years of its evolution.
All mammals though derived from synapsids (which is a particular type of reptile) for which we can still find living fossils today in my home country of Australia - I have a few monotremes in the form of platypuses living in a pond not far from where I live - these and echidnas are a leftover relic, mammals that still lays eggs! They literally are the inbetween species you're looking for.
You, my friend, totally and completely fail at understanding what the Theory of Evolution is. This is exactly what Evolution wouldn't predict.
Not even close.What does all this mean friend. When I read it, it sounds like I am debating a very religious man, who is holding up to religious dogma like the Evolution Theory. Am I right?
As a an engineer luck is not a position of a rationale mind. I have shown that to accept evolution theory one must throw away a rationale mind and to embrace a religious like doctrinal dogma, that is appealing on the surface.
I can see why evolution theory would be appealing to some who yearn for the sensationalist views, like the Earth is Flat theory.
I have no problem with people who religiously and piously hold their religious dogma.
Well, this indoctrination leads to productive and functional contributors to society in scientific and biomedical research, evidence based medicine, farming and agriculture technologies, etc. The Theory itself is confirmed by finding after finding and lays a predictive framework that makes accurate prediction time and time again.Well I would not call anyone a liar, when I discern them to be utterly confused by long term indoctrination. I consider them victims, at times self inflicted victims.
Sure. I'm talking about changes in alleles in a population over time though, not biological metamorphosis.Anything that happens within a life cycle and not millions of millions of years through genetic transmutation is adaptation, built into the species to make transition. Like a tadpole to a frog and a caterpillar to a butterfly.
Again, I'm talking about changes in alleles in a population over time. There aren't any limits in this process, these alleles are known to accumulate mutations constantly, and if left unchecked in two sets of isolated populations that were once the same, they eventually lead to a speciation event where the two populations will eventually not be able to interbreed and then continue on to diverge in their appearances and functions forever, never being able to create viable offspring again - we see this in ring species as well as in horse/donkey hybrids, and lion/tiger hybrids, etc. This is literally the speciation event that means they'll never converge as one species ever again.It is allowed so much as it is designed for adaptation. You discover it in a beaker and then jump for joy and call it evolution, when all you have achieved is given it inputs and in response the plant machinery responds within its operating mode. You can swing it from one end to another, it is just like finding its limits of operation. What does that prove.
No, didn't you even read what I wrote? Is an Otter transitional? Is a Hippo transitional? How about Seals? Walruses? Manatees? All of these creatures have literally come from completely land-based mammal species and in all likeliness could probably themselves be transitioning to a Whale-like form too. In short, we have a very rich fossil record of the land mammal to sea mammal progression of the cetateans, do any of their fossils look like intermediate failures?So we should see billions of variations of the transitioning in fossils. Unless you think that the process was flawless from one species to another.
No, not just two, these are just two examples I can examine myself of the evolution from synapsids which the theory of evolution predicted would have been present in the fossil record - we're just lucky enough that these two made it through alive and aren't relegated to a footnote in the fossil record.Just one or two maybe? Not good enough to prove evolution. Just like I can't plot a straight line from sydney to melbourne, if I didn't have multiple markers and a laser pointer. You said millions of years. Ok we need millions of markers to make an approximation of that straight line to prove the path of Evolution from one species to another.
Nope, Observation.Really! So is this your disclaimer?
Only God existed before anything existed. Everything that exists resides within God's creative eternal being. Created things exist. God is.
Yes, consciousness is tightly coupled with brain functioning as you note.
But consciousness resides in the spiritual realm as part of our soul; the subjective experience of consciousness is not physical. Yes, I am a dualist and I think Christianity supports that.
The is no evidence that the subjective experience of consciousness springs from matter.
I think only the dualist view makes sense; that consciousness or mind is something new, not merely a configuration of physical material matter.
realy? lets test this claim: according to this criteria if we will find a self replicating car\robot\watch that are able to reproduce (and made from organic components) in a far planet, we cant conclude that it's the result of design?
What is the connection to design detection? if we had only one or two species you may asked why there is no more species. right?
also remember that a speciation isnt a new family of a beetle.
so the number of species may tell us nothing about the number of different beetles. so or so: it doesnt have any connection to the question about motors and robots.
proud in what exactly?
i only want to show you why no one is able to detect "bad design" in nature. by the same logic we can claim that car has a bad design, since it have this trait:
Spare tire - Wikipedia
now, if an alien will see this he will claim for a bad design, since this is a wrong place for a tire to be place. as i said: any claim about bad design is a bad argument.
because that was evolutionists claim for many years. as dawkins put it:
“Once again, send it back, is not just bad design, it’s the design of a complete idiot.”
Richard Dawkins, (2009) The Greatest Show on Earth, Bantam Press, pp353-354.
since we now know that this trait actually improve vision, the designer isn't an idiot after all, and dawkins is wrong.
Richard Dawkins said:One consequence of the photocells pointing backwards is that the wires that carry their data somehow have to pass through the retina and back to the brain. What they do, in the vertebrate eye, is all converge on a particular hole in the retina, where they dive through it. The hole filled with nerves is called the blind spot, because it is blind, but 'spot' is too flattering, for it is quite large, more like a blind patch, which again doesn't actually inconvenience us much because of the 'automatic Photoshop' software in the brain. Once again, send it back, it's not just bad design, it's the design of a complete idiot.
such as? give an example. are you referring to a disease?
according to this source it may has several functions:
Laryngeal Nerve Anatomy: Introduction, Vagus Nerve (Cranial Nerve X), Superior Laryngeal Nerve
"The larynx serves multiple functions, including control of respiration, airway protection, coordination of swallowing, and phonation. Several nerves in the larynx control these tasks."
and:
Recurrent laryngeal nerve - Wikipedia
"The nerves also carry sensory information from the mucous membranes of the larynx below the lower surface of the vocal fold,[17]:847–9 as well as sensory, secretory and motor fibres to the cervical segments of the esophagus and the trachea."
so what? so evolution doesn't predict this fossil. and yet we found it. so evolution is false, or it isnt a scientific theory.
it was merely the most likely explanation under the creation model too. as i explained.
according to this any fossil cant fit with this criteria. we can also claim that some fossils are still missing. so evolution will have no problem to explain even such a situation. many fossils are still missing in the older layers. and you dont see any evolutionist claimming that evolution is false because of that.
dont be so sure:
Sea anemone genome reveals ancestral eumetazoan gene repertoire and genomic organization. - PubMed - NCBI
"The sea anemone genome is complex, with a gene repertoire, exon-intron structure, and large-scale gene linkage more similar to vertebrates than to flies or nematodes"
first: we still wait to see if we can test evolution at all.HiEv said:What would disprove ID/creationism to you?
second: if you can show how one family of creature can evolve into another one (say a cat into dog)
it will falsified the creation model.
i never said that it's evidence against evolution. i said that this isnt evidence for evoltion.
evolution is also about common descent and changes in the family level. so i think that we should agree about the definition for evolution first.
HiEv said:Again, evolution (not the theory of evolution by natural selection, just evolution) is simply a change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. That's all it is. If you think it's something more than that, then you're simply misinformed.
We have a brain and can create language and terms that we can use to understand one another. They don't have to be in text books or taught at school.
It doesn't help when the ideas themselves are divorced from reality.Problem is when we invent terms and use language that no one else understands it's difficult to get your "ideas" across.
The argument from awe.I see evidence everywhere for a single intelligent designer, who simultaneously created different species, without any cross contamination of species. The inherent embedded Fibonnici DNA pattern found across species highlight a single designer signiture. Transmutation of species would indicate evolution and a totally alien DNA signiture. We do not find a different DNA signiture and in this respect we have no choice but to acknowledge a single intelligent designer. Thankyou!
Not taught at school, but we learn from the people around us from a very young age.We have a brain and can create language and terms that we can use to understand one another. They don't have to be in text books or taught at school.
because that was evolutionists claim for many years. as dawkins put it:
“Once again, send it back, is not just bad design, it’s the design of a complete idiot.”
Richard Dawkins, (2009) The Greatest Show on Earth, Bantam Press, pp353-354.
since we now know that this trait actually improve vision, the designer isn't an idiot after all, and dawkins is wrong.
according to this source it may has several functions:
Laryngeal Nerve Anatomy: Introduction, Vagus Nerve (Cranial Nerve X), Superior Laryngeal Nerve
"The larynx serves multiple functions, including control of respiration, airway protection, coordination of swallowing, and phonation. Several nerves in the larynx control these tasks."
and:
Recurrent laryngeal nerve - Wikipedia
"The nerves also carry sensory information from the mucous membranes of the larynx below the lower surface of the vocal fold,[17]:847–9 as well as sensory, secretory and motor fibres to the cervical segments of the esophagus and the trachea."
1. fossils are rare and fragile; the vast majority of organisms that die never become fossils, and plenty that do end up breaking apart long before we have a chance to discover them.There would exist so numerous of failed transmutations over millions of millions of failed attempts, that earth would be a graveyard riddled and I mean riddled of transmutation fossil remains. Let me know if you happen to dig one up in your backyard, that is if you have a yard.
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?