The Theory of Evolution: Defined

[USincognito]

true. so there will no problem for evolution if we will find a mammal with feathers.

Just stop. Please, just stop.

 

[xianghua]

Just stop. Please, just stop.

same to you. once again we see why evolution isnt a scientific theory.

 

[Skreeper]

same to you. once again we see why evolution isnt a scientific theory.

Actually all we can see is that you have no idea how evolution works.

 

[xianghua]

Actually all we can see is that you have no idea how evolution works.

if you say so...

 

[Skreeper]

if you say so...

Well apparently most people here agree with that. What does that tell you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

same to you. once again we see why evolution isnt a scientific theory.

Actually, what we see "once again", is how you don't read the posts you are replying to.
What we see "once again", is how you continue to spout the same nonsense over and over again, even after plenty of people already corrected you and explained in detail why it is nonsense.

So, what we see "once again", is your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[xianghua]

Well apparently most people here agree with that. What does that tell you?

that you are an atheist?

 

[Skreeper]

that you are an atheist?

Most Theists accept evolution. You do know that, right?

 

[USincognito]

that you are an atheist?

Given your responses to the repeated attempts to correct your myriad misunderstandings, this non sequitur of a response surprises me not one iota.

 

[sfs]

once again we see why evolution isnt a scientific theory.

Scientists think evolution is a scientific theory. You don't. Who do you think knows more about science, you or the scientists?

 

[PsychoSarah]

sorry, but what is difference between a mammal with genes for feathers and a mammal with genes for feathers development?

There is a huge difference between a mammal that has feathers, and a mammal having some genes associated with feather development in other animals. I will try to explain why as best as I can:

1. Mammals and reptiles diverged on the evolutionary timeline long before feathers as a trait is seen on any fossil. As in, mammals diverged from reptiles more than 100 million years before feathers show up on the evolutionary timeline. Even accounting for error, it is unreasonable to think that feathers as a trait existed before that evolutionary split. Thus, mammals with feathers should not exist, since that trait developed in an evolutionary line they hadn't been a part of for tens of millions of years.

2. However, a mammal with some genes associated with feather production could exist, though the genes would be few and shared not only between mammals, but also between organisms more closely related to birds. Certain groups of reptiles should also definitively have more of these genes than mammals, that is, the reptiles that split off from those that would mark the ancestors of birds after the split between mammals and reptiles occurred. Mammals will never develop the trait of feathers naturally because even when evolution repeats function (flight has evolved independently at least 4 different times), it does not repeat structural form (the wings of insects are vastly different from the wings of bats, and both are highly different from the wings of birds). Plus, mammals already have hair, so there are no selective pressures to produce mammals with feathers.

 

[Strathos]

Most Theists accept evolution. You do know that, right?

I was also under the impression that creationism wasn't widespread among Jews either, at least not as much as it is among Christians and Muslims.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, we don't know that. Primarily because it's a vacuous chunk of rhetoric you've glommed onto and repeat like a mantra expecting others to then agree with you.

I hope you guys are paying attention, that's how you write a satirical rant while ignoring the substantive issues.

 

[Speedwell]

The doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

I was talking about the theory of evolution as opposed to the natural phenomenon of evolution. Notice it was in two parts, one is actual science the other was a philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism. But you knew that.

I don't know why you like to fling that quote at us like it was an anathema. It is certainly not the assertion of atheism which you appear to think it.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't know why you like to fling that quote at us like it was an anathema. It is certainly not the assertion of atheism which you appear to think it.

Atheism isn't the word I would choose, it's naturalism. If you believe they have made their case with regards to natural history I say go in peace, I have no problem with you. If you can accept the Darwinian naturalistic assumptions of the tree of life and still maintain your Christian convictions then who am I to judge someone else's servant. I personally believe the definition of evolution is not one thing but two things, it's a phenomenon in nature and a philosophy of natural history that categorically rejects God as the cause of anything, ever, period. You think otherwise, well then, that's on you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

Atheism isn't the word I would choose, it's naturalism. If you believe they have made their case with regards to natural history I say go in peace, I have no problem with you. If you can accept the Darwinian naturalistic assumptions of the tree of life and still maintain your Christian convictions then who am I to judge someone else's servant. I personally believe the definition of evolution is not one thing but two things, it's a phenomenon in nature and a philosophy of natural history that categorically rejects God as the cause of anything, ever, period. You think otherwise, well then, that's on you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

All it does is make the existence of God an unfalsifiable proposition. You may not be able to use science to "prove" the existence of God, but nothing that science has or will ever discover can disprove it.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Atheism isn't the word I would choose, it's naturalism. If you believe they have made their case with regards to natural history I say go in peace, I have no problem with you. If you can accept the Darwinian naturalistic assumptions of the tree of life and still maintain your Christian convictions then who am I to judge someone else's servant. I personally believe the definition of evolution is not one thing but two things, it's a phenomenon in nature and a philosophy of natural history that categorically rejects God as the cause of anything, ever, period. You think otherwise, well then, that's on you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

The only thing scientific theories can describe are natural phenomenons. Whether supernatural things happen or not is irrelevant. Evolution nor any scientific theory can say that gods exist or not. To fault science for not including God is to absolutely not understand what science is.

 

[xianghua]

. Thus, mammals with feathers should not exist, since that trait developed in an evolutionary line they hadn't been a part of for tens of millions of years.

its actually very easy sarah. if we will find a mammal fossil with feathers we can claim for convergent evolution of feathers. after all, if eyes evolved about 50 times why feathers cant evolve twice?

Mammals will never develop the trait of feathers naturally because even when evolution repeats function (flight has evolved independently at least 4 different times), it does not repeat structural form

why not? here is one example of a similar trait as the result of convergent evolution:

What is Convergent Evolution?

 

[Skreeper]

why not? here is one example:

https://fthmb.tqn.com/4aQ2SWqn7p6fL...about/convergent-56a2b43c5f9b58b7d0cd8d61.jpg

Where are the feathers?

 

[Speedwell]

its actually very easy sarah. if we will find a mammal fossil with feathers we can claim for convergent evolution of feathers. after all, if eyes evolved about 50 times why feathers cant evolve twice?





why not? here is one example of a similar trait as the result of convergent evolution:

What is Convergent Evolution?

You mean "feather-like structures." Otherwise you're committing a category error.