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 a motor can evolve naturally then? good to know. what is the evidence for that claim?So if I knew only three Indians, and those three Indians were walking single file, then I could conclude that all Indians always walk single file?
Interesting. I didn't realize that was logically valid.
1. since a flagellum is a motor, and since all motors we know about are man made- then the flagellum is man made too
2. since a flagellum is a motor, and since all motors we know about are made of non-natural materials- then the flagellum is made of non-natural materials too
Then we can't know that all motors are designedincorrect. since the flagellum is a motor that clearly was not made by human. so not all motor we know about are men made.
It's not a claim, it's a parody of your bad logic.again incorrect since the flagellum is made from organic components your first part in your claim is incorrect.
Correct. That is one of 3 possible rooted trees for 3 species.whats wrong? maybe an image will help here. this is the first possible tree among 3 different species:
View attachment 226018
do you agree?
So if the only 3 Indians I ever saw were walking single file, it might be possible for Indians to walk beside each other? Good to know.so a motor can evolve naturally then? good to know.
whats wrong? maybe an image will help here.
That's odd. My position of common descent of life seems cohesive to the vast majority of scientists. Your position, however does not seem cohseive to me. For instance, I asked you if the polar bear and pine tree could be descended from a common ancestor, and you said you didn't care. Now you write:You do not win, you do not even have a sensible and cohesive position.
Wait, now you do care? How can that be cohesive? If sometimes you say polar bears might be related to pine trees, and sometimes you say they are not, that is incohesive.As for bears, I could allow polar and grizzly and black bears coming from one kind, but we don't really know, so I have no need to take a position on that. As for a pine tree being related to any animal, forget about it.
Which totally ignores the question. Why is it, that eohippus leaves fossils only in a small range which dates to about 55 million years ago? Why do Mesohippus fossils always date 37 to 32 million years ago? Why do Miohippus date only 32 to 25 million years ago? Why do they appear in a sequence? Does it not make sense that this might be because they were evolving with time? You are not even attempting to address this. Do you care to actually address the question? Were there multiple different natures that fossilized different species at different time? Or is it just luck that they are sorted the way they are? Or did they evolve from each other?Wrong. Not if IN the different nature, most life could not leave fossil remains! Now if all the animals you cite were all IN the former nature, then they would just be the ones that could leave remains.
Which isn't even an attempt to address the question. Care to actually address the question?No luck was involved.
God set up creation to dispose of remains of man and most animals. Now we do not know the reasons some creatures could leave remains. I suspect maybe when a creature became too far adapted/evolved from the original kind, then they possibly could leave fossil remains. Who knows?
Wait, birds might all be descended from dinos? You accept that maybe the penguin, the hummingbird, the ostrich, the hawk, and the giant extinct elephant birds might all have evolved from a common ancestor, who might have been a dinosaur?That could explain why IF birds evolved in some cases into dinos, and/or back again into birds...they THEN would be able to leave fossils. Hence, we see dino fossils!! Ha.
so the existence of a motor prove that a motor can evolve naturally? ok.The existence of the flagellum.
can you point what is the logical error here?
to show its a logical error you need to prove that a flagellum can evolve naturlaly. but you cant.
That's odd. My position of common descent of life seems cohesive to the vast majority of scientists. Your position, however does not seem cohseive to me. For instance, I asked you if the polar bear and pine tree could be descended from a common ancestor, and you said you didn't care. Now you write:
Wait, now you do care? How can that be cohesive? If sometimes you say polar bears might be related to pine trees, and sometimes you say they are not, that is incohesive.
Lets' reword my questions and see if you can actually give cohesive answers:
1. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the black bear? (You have answered this "no")
2. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the sloth bear?
3. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the giant panda?
4. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the red panda?
5. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the walrus?
6. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the dog?
7. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the cat?
8. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the hippo?
9. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the crocodile?
10. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the grasshopper?
11. Do you care if the polar bear has a common ancestor with the pine tree? (You have answered this question yes")
No, I do not think a bear came from a grasshopper. I think a bear and a grasshopper had a common ancestor.You really think claiming a bear came from a grasshopper is cohesive?
Yes. The mistake you make is in assuming that if a motor evolved naturally it wasn't designed.so the existence of a motor prove that a motor can evolve naturally? ok.
I care.Since science doesn't know at all, who really cares if they fabricate a semi cohesive fable?
Dad,
I'm back. I don't find your explanation of the fossil record to be coherent. Let me repeat the questions I had for you, and then address your attempts at answering. Here were my questions:
How can you explain the sequence of the fossil record? At first you appealed to a different nature that somehow fossilized only extinct animals in the past.
The point there was that the different nature may have messed up your dates around that time. Could it be that all those creatures were still in the other nature?But it was pointed out to you that horse family members, for instance, are found in a sequence from eohippus to mesohippus to miohippus etc. on up through the fossil record. If you were going to appeal to a different nature, you would need many different natures to explain the sorting.
Not sure why you invent this nonsense. No luck involved. The fossil sequence doe not matter too much, since all the fossils represent such a ting fraction of life on earth when the fossils were laid down.So you basically abandoned that, and switched to dumb luck as the cause of the sequence.
100% if the orses, like man and most other creatures living could not leave fossilized remains!But if all ancient horses lived throughout the cenozoic, then what are the odds that many eohippus would be found, with all in a narrow window of the fossil record?
That range is a lot smaller than you thought!Which totally ignores the question. Why is it, that eohippus leaves fossils only in a small range which dates to about 55 million years ago?
If they were in the former nature, then all it would mean is that the pattern of isotopes at the time is interpreted by your belief system as being 32-7 million years old.Why do Mesohippus fossils always date 37 to 32 million years ago?
The dates would be more in the thousands of years ago. They could fossilize, and the fossils we see represent these adapted creatures at a particular stage and time in the former nature. Naturally they have a sequence.Why do Miohippus date only 32 to 25 million years ago? Why do they appear in a sequence?
Of course if they could fossilize they likely were kinds that were quite adapted/evolved. Over time..yes..centuries and decades. You big error is the same state past dating methods.Does it not make sense that this might be because they were evolving with time?
No.Wait, birds might all be descended from dinos? You accept that maybe the penguin, the hummingbird, the ostrich, the hawk, and the giant extinct elephant birds might all have evolved from a common ancestor, who might have been a dinosaur?
All evolution started at created kinds. A.L.LSometimes you seem so open to evolution, but you are never clear how far you accept evolution.
They did not have a common ancestor, nothing to care about.No, I do not think a bear came from a grasshopper. I think a bear and a grasshopper had a common ancestor.
Do you or do you not care if they had a common ancestor?
Ah, so the polar bear might share an ancestor with the black bear but not the grasshopper. Might it share an ancestor with a red panda?They did not have a common ancestor, nothing to care about.
What does that even mean? Did the polar bear and walrus come from the same created kind? You refuse--refuse!-- to answer.All evolution started at created kinds. A.L.L
Not sure why you invent this nonsense. No luck involved. The fossil sequence doe not matter too much, since all the fossils represent such a ting fraction of life on earth when the fossils were laid down.
100% if the orses, like man and most other creatures living could not leave fossilized remains!
Wait, now you suggest that maybe eohippus evolved into something like mesohippus which evolved into something like miohippus? That was my point all along. Now you are saying that I might be right?The dates would be more in the thousands of years ago. They could fossilize, and the fossils we see represent these adapted creatures at a particular stage and time in the former nature. Naturally they have a sequence.
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?