first: again its just variation so dont call it evolution because its basically the same creature. second: who said its fast? its just what we observe in nature. means its a regular rate.
Upvote
0
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.
first: again its just variation so dont call it evolution because its basically the same creature. second: who said its fast? its just what we observe in nature. means its a regular rate.So you do feel that evolution happens fast. In this nature.
If no one else deals with that, I might when I get time.
If anything, it would be "evidence" for HUMAN design.
But such a watch does not exist
No, fish are not missing most defining features of mammals because they live in water. Dolphins do quite fine in the water with mammal features. Fish differ from dolphins because of their evolutionary heritage.
Trucks are different. Trucks differ from cars because, by definition, they carry large loads, and need those features to carry large loads.
No, convergence does not disprove nested hierarchy.
How many times must we tell you that nested hierarchies are overwhelmingly statistically significant, even with convergence? To defeat that you must show it is not statistically significant. You won't defeat it by citing examples of convergence.
So when you show that vehicles designed to carry large loads have designs to carry large loads, that is nothing more than a tautology.
why would evolution use 4% of our genes as scent? Hmmm.....why would that happen....oh wait maybe the 600 million years of evolution before we became humans? But we lost many of them as humans, probably I would suspect partly due to our smaller noses, and more relience on things like sight and such. just as the explanation for why do dolphins have genes for air scent, because it's left overs from their ancestors like pakisetus and such. That used to live on land, but as it switched to water it needed different ways to scent, since the nostrils became the blowhole.
here is the problem you have, least above fish level how many changes are there from amphibian to humans are there that are new and require whole new changes?
The kidney's, during development, they drasticly change 3 times, and in one case completly restart their growth, going from earlier versions in evolution to our current, kinda weird to do that, evolution can explain it, but how does creationism?
Again from amphibian to human, most of the changes are to existing structures and things, you have some new proteins that have some effects but thats not the same thing as suddenly requiring a whole new limb, or organ and such.
? How many new species of tigers have we seen in the last 100 years? 1000 years?first: again its just variation so dont call it evolution because its basically the same creature. second: who said its fast? its just what we observe in nature. means its a regular rate.
are you saying that a dolphin or a whale cant smell because they have genes for air scent?
actually human (or at least many land mammals) has many genes that dont exist in amphibian:
Orphan gene - Wikipedia
"Estimates of the percentage of genes which are orphans varies enormously between species and between studies; 10-30% is a commonly cited figure"
actually this kidney (called pronephros) is essential for the development of the adult kidneys:
Pronephros - Wikipedia
"Despite this transient appearance in mammals, the pronephros is essential for the development of the adult kidneys. The duct of the mesonephros forms the Wolffian duct and ureter of the adult kidney. The embryonic kidney and its derivatives also produces the inductive signals that trigger formation of the adult kidney."
so creation can explain it just fine.
even if its true, the fact that many animals do have new organs prove that they most evolve them somehow. so if they cant evolve them stepwise it means that evolution is wrong. i gave you a simple example like a motion system. even you as intelligent designer cant add a single part to make a motion system for an organ. you need at least several parts to begin with. so such a system cant evolve stepwise.
False. It requires pure imagination. Yes flatworms move and other little creatures move. That does not mean they are a 'step'! Movement is a sign of life.each step has a use, and each next step is better, it doesn't require a huge amount of imagination.
.
False. It requires pure imagination. Yes flatworms move and other little creatures move. That does not mean they are a 'step'! Movement is a sign of life.
In man's little machines, movement generally is also a sign of being made by a creator rather than being self made. Looking at a machine we should see that it is created.
Can you name one other person besides you that says that a lion and a domestic cat are basically the same creature?first: again its just variation so dont call it evolution because its basically the same creature. second: who said its fast? its just what we observe in nature. means its a regular rate.
Ah, back to nonsense questions. We have spent months addressing your nonsense questions, and yet you refuse to answer ours. If you refuse to answer nonsense questions, why should we answer yours?but if such a watch will be exist you will conclude design or a natrual process if you see such one?
I think you will agree with me that I have answered this many times in the last two weeks. If I answered again you will ignore my answer again, yes?.
so where you draw the limit for convergent evolution? by 5 shared traits? 10? 15?
Xianghua denies that there can be evolutionary steps.we are talking about methods for moving, just as the steps for the eye are in nature, fairly good evidence towards evolution when you can see the evolutionary steps.
If "God" came and told you evolution is real, will you believe him/her/it?but if such a watch will be exist you will conclude design or a natrual process if you see such one?
No. Not at all. You are talking a few samples from a partial fossil record, and trying to connect the dots without God and creation.we are talking about methods for moving, just as the steps for the eye are in nature, fairly good evidence towards evolution when you can see the evolutionary steps.
Just because there can be does not mean that that is all that was involved.Xianghua denies that there can be evolutionary steps.
No. Not at all. You are talking a few samples from a partial fossil record, and trying to connect the dots without God and creation.
I won't even try to unpack this word salad. If you wish to regard a dolphin as an exceptional fish, then you obviously misunderstand the basics of biology. Dolphins are mammals, as has been explained to you multiple times here. Please familiarize yourself with the basics of biology. I understand there is a language issue here, and I appreciate your attempts to communicate in our language, but this is ridiculous. If you really are interested in understanding, then find a way to learn the basics of biology. Are there no biology books in your language you can read? If not, you may want to start with elementary biology in English and work your way up to college level. We have spent multiple posts explaining it to you. You could also go back and read those posts.incorrect. most trucks have a mudflap and most cars dont. most trucks have big wheels and most cars dont. many trucks have a reverse beeper and most cars dont (if any). although those traits can be exist in cars usually they arent. the dolphin example is exceptional rather then the rule so its irrelevant, otherwise you will need to include the exceptional against evolution like in the shark case i mention. but you dont. right?
I see. You didn't make that clear when you said what I responded to..what fossils, i'm talking about things that exist now.
Given the level of English in the papers he links to I suspect the "English is not my native" is more of a scam than a reality.I won't even try to unpack this word salad. If you wish to regard a dolphin as an exceptional fish, then you obviously misunderstand the basics of biology. Dolphins are mammals, as has been explained to you multiple times here. Please familiarize yourself with the basics of biology. I understand there is a language issue here, and I appreciate your attempts to communicate in our language, but this is ridiculous. If you really are interested in understanding, then find a way to learn the basics of biology. Are there no biology books in your language you can read? If not, you may want to start with elementary biology in English and work your way up to college level. We have spent multiple posts explaining it to you. You could also go back and read those posts.
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?