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.
A dingo thingies in the trees did not become king of the seas.False. Science is about knowledge. It is not knowledge to claim some dingo thingie in a tree became king of the seas.
False. Science is about knowledge. It is not knowledge to claim some dingo thingie in a tree became king of the seas.
So what? I suggested whales and dolphins may have once been both land and sea animals. What has that got to do with the magic dingo in a tree fable?It's not a fairy tale that some land based animals find themselves in a position that they do well spending some of their time at sea.
Creation is about vatiation. That does not mean that dolphins had to have descended from some dingo dog lion you happened to find a fossil of.And no, it is not a fantasy that ancestors have variation. This is a known fact.
?? Can you explain why you claim this animals spent most of it's time at sea??If an animal and its relatives spend much of their day at sea
? What makes this animals seaworthy..aside from your fable needing it to be?, and some of these are more seaworthy than others, why wouldn't they be more likely to survive?
A dingo thingies in the trees did not become king of the seas.
A mammal in the seas evolved to became mighty in the seas.
Yeah right. Let us not forget science is all about making godless stuff up whole of cloth. They made up that fable about where the moon came from. After being exposed as another joke, they cook up another whopper.You can believe whatever you want. But again, you're not the decider of what is or isn't science.
Dolphins had a reason to become dolphins. It's called survival of the fittest.So the dingo thingie lost it's tail and grew fins for no particular reason? Then it became might in the seas!!?
Behold the theory.
You forgot to clarify that it must be THE SAME trait. With the SAME underlying mechanics, genetics, etc.
Remember that the magic dingo in the tree is your invention, not mine. I said nothing about it.So what? I suggested whales and dolphins may have once been both land and sea animals. What has that got to do with the magic dingo in a tree fable?
Creation is about vatiation. That does not mean that dolphins had to have descended from some dingo dog lion you happened to find a fossil of.
?? Can you explain why you claim this animals spent most of it's time at sea??
? What makes this animals seaworthy..aside from your fable needing it to be?
If only the created kinds were on the ark, and the species happened after the flood, that will work.
But that will not work in this nature, as I think the adapting and evolving would take too long.
Why do you make up things and pretend they are my basis?You base what is likely on two misconceptions.
-That there was no creation, so we need to look in the fossil record for a sequence of evolved life.
- That the fossil record represents a good cross section of life on the planet in the early record.
One can try to dismiss the record of creation and early times for no reason at all, if one wants.
I guess made up fantasy can eventually lead wherever you like.
not realy. here is the original talkorigin claim: "Proceeding with the previous example, some nonvascular plants could have seeds or flowers, like vascular plants, but they do not". so they clearly talk about morphological traits.
wow....do you not understand. the problem is for creationist and cdesign proponents to explain why your idea of god would create dolphins giving the illusion of them being evolved from land animals, by having meaningless scent genes that would only have been useful in their past if they lived on land.
Again, the kidney has a purpose because it has to be that way due to evolutionary past, explain why like with the scent genes would your god use something that hints at evolution why not make a single kidney that doesn't have to go through previous evolutionary stages? It's wasteful.
the eye is simple, a partial eye works better then none, a eye that can't move is still useful, a eye that can move a ittle has more beneficial and so on. goes back to the old, "What good is half a eye." well it's better then a quarter of a eye.
-_- do you seriously not know that there are single celled eukaryotes with flagella? Do you not see the connection between how flagella move and the motion of actin filaments in muscle? Do you even know what I am referencing?
Congratz.
you managed to even misunderstand your very own claims.
Congratz too. you cant admit even a simple fact.
This is what it says:
More precisely, if the phylogenetic tree of all life gave statistically significant low values of phylogenetic signal (hierarchical structure), common descent would be resolutely falsified.
You were told over and over that you need to find enough cases to be stastisically significant.
Again you are basically sorting vehicles in order based on one variable. That is not a nested hierarchy. Nested hierarchies sort on multiple independent variables.
they also said that: "It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings".
so how many cases we need to find to conclude its false?
again incorrect. as i showed with trucks compare vs cars. trucks share many traits with other trucks but not with cars.
so if we will make vehicles tree, trucks in general will group with other trucks rather then with cars.
i realy see no problem with designer who made a groups of creatures: mammals, reptiles etc.
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?