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.
Yes it is a question of what they look like in your belief system. Of course they are related in many cases. As I said, there was the created kinds, and then a lot of evolving.No the question is why things look like they are related.
I contend that that they look like they are related because they indeed are.
Ok we have been talking here about horses, zebras and donkeys which are members of the Equus genus. These all appear to be related to a long line of extinct members of the horse family known from the fossil record. If we go back in time we see smaller members of the family, that have different feet and different diet. The earliest known family member is the Eohippus.As I said, there was the created kinds, and then a lot of evolving.
i will say there is no evolution at all. just variations.And whatever order is there is due to creation and subsequent evolving, rather than 'evolution' anyhow.
i base this on a general similarity. do you agree that in general, 2 cars from the same company will be more similar to each other then 2 trucks from the same company?What is your underlying dataset and tree construction methodology for the above diagram?
Oh, the answer is "there isn't any"?
Congrats, you've falsified your own argument.
xianghua, the questions will not go away. Please answer these questions. If you will not tell us what you believe, how will we know? If you think your view of origins is better than ours, why not tell us what your view is?
1) You had told us that you thought animals were probably made over a period of hundreds of millions of years, with the fossil record as evidence of the order. Are you now changing your mind?
2) Do you or do you not think different animals were probably made over a long period of hundreds of millions of years?
3) Do you or do you not think the fossil record is an indication of the order they were made? Were mammals made hundreds of millions of years after trilobites?
5) Do you or do you not think that the first Eohippus were made close to the time of the first Hyracotherium, as the fossil record indicates?
6) You have stated that all zebras, horses and Eohippus probably came from a common ancestor. Do you or do you not still believe this?
7) There is nothing close to a zebra fossil that has been found over 5 million years old. But there are probably thousands of known Eohippus around 50 million years old. How is it that you say they both came from the same ancestor when there must have been no zebras 50 million years ago, and no Eohippus in the time of zebras? Did Eohippus or its kin evolve into zebras?
These are simple yes or no questions that come to the core of evolution and what we have been talking about.
Again, even if you had proven design, how would that prove that the method was exploding watermelons or vomit by dinos or whatever method you think God used? How would that prove the method God used was not evolution?
and if i will show you they actually do that many times what you will say?It's his way of acting out a belief that paleontologists arrange fossils arbitrarily to "prove" evolution without any other underlying rational.
I will know for sure that you are a liar, or completely ignorant about what you are posting.and if i will show you they actually do that many times what you will say?
No. There is no reason to think so and I have never observed it.i base this on a general similarity. do you agree that in general, 2 cars from the same company will be more similar to each other then 2 trucks from the same company?
i base this on a general similarity.
Ok we have been talking here about horses, zebras and donkeys which are members of the Equus genus. These all appear to be related to a long line of extinct members of the horse family known from the fossil record. If we go back in time we see smaller members of the family, that have different feet and different diet. The earliest known family member is the Eohippus.
What is the original created zebra kind? Zebra? Equis? Eohippus? Something else?
"General similarity" is not a dataset. "General similarity" is not an algorithm.
A proper phylogenetic tree is based on a dataset. What is your dataset?
What you don't seem to understand is that phylogenetic trees are not arbitrary diagrams people just draw in MS Paint, like what you have done. Rather they have underlying methodologies, datasets, and mathematical rules around their construction. You can read more about it here: Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia
You keep claiming it's possible to construct a phylogenetic tree to demonstrate nested hierarchies of designed objects, but since you are not able to do this yourself means you can't even support your own argument.
Well, if all the millions of species of animals we have had since Noah's day were all on the ark, you think there is room? There had to have been a lot of adapting/evolving from the created kinds that were on the ark since then. Do you thin there were 30 species of tigers on there for example?i will say there is no evolution at all. just variations.
As explained, your so called data sets are belief sets."General similarity" is not a dataset. .
sure. this is speciation (formation of a new species). but its not evolution since basically its the same creature.Well, if all the millions of species of animals we have had since Noah's day were all on the ark, you think there is room? There had to have been a lot of adapting/evolving from the created kinds that were on the ark since then. Do you thin there were 30 species of tigers on there for example?
As explained, your so called data sets are belief sets.
The way genes transferred in that former nature, recombined, and etc etc is not known, and depends on the nature of that day.
this is speciation (formation of a new species). but its not evolution since basically its the same creature.
if you want to call variation evolution fine. but remember again that under this definition even if creationism is true evolution is true.The formation of a new species *is* evolution. Just because you don't know what evolution is doesn't change what evolution is.
A house cat is not basically a lion.sure. this is speciation (formation of a new species). but its not evolution since basically its the same creature.
A proper phylogenetic tree is based on a dataset.
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?