Is that like those "Alternate Facts" that creationists talk about? 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.
Now, let's see you tapdance that away...
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?
I had been constructing a detailed riposte to this post. However, as I got deeper into it I realised that your approach was essentially one of sticking your fingers in your ear and saying "Na, na, na, na, na." as loudly as possible. No evidence, no data, no science, nothing will convince you. But please, if you have any respect, do not try to claim the science is faulty. That stance stinks. Hold to your faith based belief - I have no problem with that, but this disregard for sound science is sickening.
Is a tomato evidence for air transport?
Superficially, this may appear to be a silly question. However, if I find a fresh tomato in Iceland, demonstrate the tomatoes cannot be successfully grown outdoors in Iceland; that there are no commercial or private ventures growing tomatoes indoors in Iceland; that no sea shipments of tomatoes have been made to Iceland; then this evidence, though not conclusive evidence, for air transport.
In a similar way you need to ask further questions, or contribute further observations, before anyone can properly answer as to whether or not a motor is evidence for design
Because common descent requires that humans originally had the same number of chromosomes as other primates.
Sure we can. After all, how many cars do you see naturally occurring?so you can't conclude that a car is designed just because it is a car according to this logic. fine.
It appears I have been unclear. I'll try again.so a motor is evidence for design or not?
so you are not sure if a motor is evidence for design or not?
We also by the same measurable criteria know they share a common ancestor but for some odd reason, you really, really don't want to acknowledge that pointcreation model also requires that humans originally had the same number of chromosomes as other primates, since we already know that they are sharing about 98% of their genome. the logical conclusion is of course a chromosomal fusion.
Depends whether the organic watch shows telltale signs of inorganic manipulation, such as toolmarks of manufacture, a designer designing it and fssddhioning it into shape, etc.according to this criteria a plastic watch is evidence for design but an organic watch (made from wood) isn't
according to this criteria a plastic watch is evidence for design but an organic watch (made from wood) isn't.
Yes, really.not realy.
Well, you can, but scientists are constrained by the evidence, and other phylogenetic trees are not allowed by the evidence.we can always claim for a different phylogenetic tree,
The part before "since" does not follow from the part after "since". It is, in fact, completely wrong, since creationists used to argue that the different number of chromosomes for humans as evidence against common descent.secondy: creation model also requires that humans originally had the same number of chromosomes as other primates, since we already know that they are sharing about 98% of their genome.
Because plastic, as far as we know, depends on human manufacture.according to this criteria a plastic watch is evidence for design but an organic watch (made from wood) isn't.
Well, you can, but scientists are constrained by the evidence, and other phylogenetic trees are not allowed by the evidence.
It is, in fact, completely wrong, since creationists used to argue that the different number of chromosomes for humans as evidence against common descent.
Because we have all answered that question over and over again until we are sick of it. A motor is not evidence of design just because it is a motor. You can't tell whether such a thing is designed unless it shows indications of human manufacture. And the same answer applies to watches, robots and organic autogyros on the moon and all the other examples you have come up with. Function and complexity are not evidence of design.i also noticed that you ignored again my simple question about the motor. wonder why...
So the real flagellum (not made of metal) is unnecessarily complicated. Sounds like the Creator is not a very good Designer.actually yes:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ficial-bacterial-flagellum-that-consists-of-a
and its even less complex and sophisticated then a real flagellum.
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?