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.
That cannot be proven. =)) Genes do not mutate! Our DNA is steadfast.So? Whatever evolved is just a modified version of whatever its ancesters were.
Again, irrelevant to the subject material being presented.
That cannot be proven. =)) Genes do not mutate! Our DNA is steadfast.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macroevolutionI'm sorry. I really want to talk to you, if you answer me just one question.
Here goes:
What is evolution and what are its mechanisms? Please give me a concise and simple answer to that.
We'll take it from there.
So dogs don't by any chance come from wolfs?That cannot be proven. =)) Genes do not mutate! Our DNA is steadfast.
That scenario has been used, this was my reply:Ok, how about this...
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the prosecution would have you believe that the defendant is guilty, simply because of the blood on his hands, the fingerprints and DNA on the knife, the letter from the defendant saying, "I am going to stab you", the video of the defendants statement at the scene, standing over the victim holding the knife in which he said, "I did it, I killed him, and I'm glad I did", and other assorted 'evidence'. But I say to you, members of the Jury, you weren't there, you didn't see it, and therefore you must return a verdict of Not Guilty."
Sound reasonable?
Ah, but you see, such a conclusion is not based on a species or entity outside humanity or time, is it?
Darwin writes because he is only a man who lived the normal length of a human, the evidence brought up of the past is limited, so therefore, the evidence needed to prove his theory is out of our range and can't prove evolution at reach.
You see, murder is a good metaphor but not good enough. Solving a murder case involves a murderer, at least, does it not? Without a murder suspect, do we randomly start accusing people of murder? Without a valid record of the past, do we start randomly bringing up facts and associating them with evolution? Hmm...
Since we have no proper evidence to put on the murder suspect we have no one to accuse and with no one to accuse we have no case.
Darwin brought a murder suspect without proper evidence. Evidence is being used today to prove the suspect guilty but is it proving the suspect guilty or a pack of anxious anti-creationists with the need to settle justice of any kind under any circumstance on anyone?
Sure.electroid,
Would you agree with the following statements:
1. Not all offspring will survive and reproduce.
2. Not all offspring have an equal chance of surviving and reproducing.
3. Offspring are not identical to their parents
?
They do. That is the demonstration of microevolution and not macro.So dogs don't by any chance come from wolfs?
Maize doesn't come from teosinte?
Wheat doesn't come from grass?
Genetic disorders do not exist?
Viruses and bacteria don't exist anymore because they never mutated?
I have no different a definition of evolution than you, I simply refute it.Sorry, babe. But your words are the only priceless thing we all want to hear. We know what evolution is and how it works. Show us what you know so we know how bad it is and how much work we have on our hands with you.
Thanks!
They do. That is the demonstration of microevolution and not macro.
I have no different a definition of evolution than you, I simply refute it.
Curious. So you agree with all of the necessary elements of evolution.michabo said:Would you agree with the following statements:
1. Not all offspring will survive and reproduce.
2. Not all offspring have an equal chance of surviving and reproducing.
3. Offspring are not identical to their parents
Sure.
"Appearance is too subjective. Reasonable people might disagree as to whether or not two critters look enough alike to be the same species. Scientists need an objective (testable) definition of species. The common definition of "species" is "related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding." 1
Biologists classify individual organisms at the basic level of the species, which is the only category that can be regarded as occurring in nature. The higher categories are abstract groupings of species. A species is composed of organisms that resemble one another in many important characteristics. Moreover, in organisms that have sexual reproduction, a species is made up of interbreeding populations that, ideally, cannot produce fertile offspring with members of any other species.
Species that do not interbreed with each other but are clearly related by important shared traits are grouped into a genus (plural, genera) … To construct the hierarchy of classification, one or more genera are grouped into a family, families are grouped into orders, orders into classes, classes into phyla, and phyla into kingdoms. 2
The weasel-word "ideally" is used because one would like a definition of "species" that is transitive (in the mathematical sense of the word). That is, a mathematician would like to be able to reason, "if Critter A is the same species as Critter B, and Critter B is the same species as Critter C, then Critter A is the same species as Critter C." In almost every instance, the interbreeding test satisfies this condition, but there are a few "circular overlaps. This is where there is a chain of intergrading subspecies forming a looping or overlapping circle whose terminal links, although inhabiting the same geographical region, do not interbreed even though they are connected by a complete chain of interbreeding populations. The classic case of this is the two species of European gull." 3 The interbreeding test isn't perfect."
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/topics.htm
Proof. Proof without the need for theoretical speculation. Then evolution can be validated as true.
I didn't define species any differently than the dictionary did.
electroid said:Interbreeding doesn't even necessarily define a species from one another. Notice the use of "potentially" preceding "capable of interbreeding".
and thenelectroid said:Mumbo jumbo put aside,
What is that?Definition is meaningless without what it's defining.
electroid said:So, if you're trying to back up macroevolution by formally defining a species so that you can make the switcheroo verbally, I know how it's done.
Macroevolution cannot be "shown". It can only be "speculated" to have happened. There is no foundation for its occurrence but that of an old man's writing. You're as faithful as the creationists. Welcome to reality.How do you define proof?
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?