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.
Wow. See this post less than 24 hours ago in this very thread and in response to this same horrendous misrepresentation. Why are you so dishonest? Who do you think believes any of your refuted claims?Says the person that presents a fossil long down the line past that claimed split while being asked for a single common ancestor that split.... Not only off-topic, but then just now presents another off-topic rant.... All because his missing common ancestors are all imaginary and he can't provide one single one for one single creature for any evolutionary tree where any claimed split happened.
Your FAITH is strong....
It's a start, now you can also concede that there exists none for any creature. That its all based upon imagination....
Yet despite not being able to be certain of anything.... you are absolutely certain humans and apes evolved from the same common ancestor.....As has been explained, your request is unreasonable and dishonest, we cannot be certain of direct ancestral lines of organisms in the fossil record, even in the unlikely event that they have been preserved and then found.
And no, molecular biology is not based on imagination, as you should be aware, given people have been attempting to explain this to you for many years.
Why not start a thread about the topic instead of derailing this one?
Yet despite not being able to be certain of anything.... you are absolutely certain humans and apes evolved from the same common ancestor.....
What biology? Ahhh, you must be talking about the random comparison of snippets of DNA that for some reason is not allowed in any court of law to prove relationships or the guilt of a suspect. Instead a completely different test is used to prove ancestry........ You mean your "CLAIM" of using biology, which is actually pseudoscience, versus actual biology.... So back we go to imaginary claims that random comparisons prove relationship when it can't be used in any court to prove relationships.... goes along with those imaginary ancestors.....
Avoidance of reality won't change the fact that this test you claim is positively able to show relationship can't be used in any court of law to show relationship.If you want to challange established science; go and write a article for peer-review. If you cant, well then your ”opinion” doesnt matter. Its all hot air.
Avoidance of reality won't change the fact that this test you claim is positively able to show relationship can't be used in any court of law to show relationship.
Ptolemy and his followers were following what they believed to be established science.....
Why until we sent a probe out to the heliosphere they claimed all their models that were falsified were established science.... despite all the peer reviewed articles all of them were wrong......
Your reliance on majority belief as if that proves your belief is correct is a known common fallacy.... The fact you can't use that belief in any court of law shows the fallacy for what it is..... Just belief and not proven science at all.....
Whatever excuses you need to avoid the fact that your claimed science is nothing more than belief.... Not proven in any test to show actual relationship.... but I understand that pseudoscience is all they have to attempt to confirm their belief and so like you will continue to believe in pseudoscience....Yeah yeah, you cant.
So, irrelevant.
Whatever excuses you need to avoid the fact that your claimed science is nothing more than belief.... Not proven in any test to show actual relationship.... but I understand that pseudoscience is all they have to attempt to confirm their belief and so like you will continue to believe in pseudoscience....
What would be irrelevant is to continue to ignore fact, which you admit, then ignore the conclusion to what you understand to be true, simply to continue to hold a belief you know is false....
Yet despite not being able to be certain of anything.... you are absolutely certain humans and apes evolved from the same common ancestor.....
What biology? Ahhh, you must be talking about the random comparison of snippets of DNA that for some reason is not allowed in any court of law to prove relationships or the guilt of a suspect. Instead a completely different test is used to prove ancestry........ You mean your "CLAIM" of using biology, which is actually pseudoscience, versus actual biology.... So back we go to imaginary claims that random comparisons prove relationship when it can't be used in any court to prove relationships.... goes along with those imaginary ancestors.....
Unreasonable? How many different fossil species do we have? You seem to be able to positively identify billions, but can't out of those billions identify one common ancestor for any of them????
False, again. I've made no such claim.You got no problem claiming Lucy is an ancestor...
Apparently you need to reread them since you incorrectly brought up Lucy as the common ancestor. So we can basically disregard your claims of the other person not understanding....You've already "discussed" this over six pages of your own thread, go and re-read the answers you've been given there and stop wasting everyone's time.
Incorrect Assumptions of Past Similarities
Which happens individual by individual... but only in a very limited population....And if it is of any use it will spread to the whole population.
Apparently you need to reread them since you incorrectly brought up Lucy as the common ancestor. So we can basically disregard your claims of the other person not understanding....
What do you want to talk about instead? The unlimited genome variability that only manifests itself into variations within the same creature in limited subsets across all creatures?
Or would you prefer bacteria that remain bacteria despite claims of unlimited variation? Or fruit flies? Or dogs that contained variation within their genomes, yet as the variation seemed to increase, each breed became less and less variable???? And all stayed the same species?????
Which leads one to wonder if they actually know what they are talking about when they call bones in the fossil record separate species based upon those minute morphological differences......
You see, its not variation that is the problem, its claim that variation leads to a different species that is the problem.....
If you count using incorrect facts as addressing them, then I guess I would have to say no....I said nothing about anyone misunderstanding anything. I said your points have been addressed, multiple times. Is that incorrect?
How about it since the seemingly unlimited variation has only addressed itself in a very limited subset....How about the topic of the thread?
All these points have been addressed, A cursory search reveals over 600 of your posts that discuss variation in dogs. It's been done to death
I'm am interested as to why you think that variation can't lead to speciation though.
How do you account for the fact that the theory of evolution is not only foundational to modern biology, it's also an applied science (including common ancestry) with real-world application?
Yet we never see this from biological industries where they have arguably the most vested interest in the best understanding of biology possible.
The only people claiming evolution is wrong are creationists and they are only doing so to protect their religious beliefs that they have set up to be contradicted by scientific findings. If anything it speaks to how fragile and nonsensical creationism is.
From ignoring reality and accepting theory over it..... it's why they complain about discussing reality....Foundational to modern biology? Are you saying that we cannot study living organisms and their morphology, physiology or anatomy unless we assume something which has never been observed - that mutational change of their genomes will result in previously non-existent organs and organ systems? Are you serious? Where do you even pull this nonsense from?
If you count using incorrect facts as addressing them, then I guess I would have to say yes....
How about it since the seemingly unlimited variation has only addressed itself in a very limited subset....
Then why keep ignoring that variation that leads to the variation being the same species? If people stop ignoring what is right in front of their eyes and keep claiming missing ancestors split to become separate things, I wouldn't need to keep bringing up reality to counter the fantasy.....
Don't complain about what people bring upon themselves from ignoring the reality we see around us....
But it needn't be dogs. We can talk about deer remaining deer, bears remaining bears, squirrels remaining squirrels, bacteria remaining bacteria, humans remaining humans, take your pick....
In all cases of actual observation no new organs have formed. So yes, if you would like we can speculate all we like, as long as when we are through with our flights of fantasy we come back down to reality....
Correct. But evolution only occurs if a mutation becomes fixed in the population, which takes many generations.but the new mutation happen in individual.
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?