lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,654
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
That's why practically every biologist in the world believes it - because they have no evidence.
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.
And so you avoid the topic and participate in ad-hominem attacks as always - because we both know not a single evolutionist here can promote evolution without ignoring direct empirical evidence.
You have observed nothing but Asian mating with Asian producing Asians. African mating with Africans producing Africans. And only when Asians mates with African does variation (Afro-Asian) appear in the species.
I understand all you have is your defensive ad-hominem attacks because you lack any science to counter the observational evidence - and so do not hold it against you personally. I understand, I really do. I understand the glitter of Fairie Dust is mesmerizing. But you really should stop ignoring the direct empirical observations. It only shows your theory for what it is - pseudo-science, because it can't even accommodate what we observe.
Yes, of course. So what?what do you think evolution is?
evolution is all about genetic variations.
you cannot possibly have common descent without it.
One could only hope that the alien was intelligent enough to realise that cross-breeding of varieties within species is not evolution by natural selection...
&
Kimura is simply arguing that evolutionary changes at a molecular scale are far more the result of genetic drift than natural selection, but he agrees that larger scale changes are the result of natural selection. Genetic drift is genetic variation; he's just questioning the driving forces behind genetic variation at different scales. It has no effect whatsoever on common descent.
I feel that my dog breeder gives a good illustration of natural selection.
I tried to mix two well behaved breeds, but my latest puppy is a real
pill sometimes.
But it only takes one generation to get extensive variation in a breed.
It's all a vast conspiracy!
One could only hope that the alien was intelligent enough to realise that cross-breeding of varieties within species is not evolution by natural selection...
That's why practically every biologist in the world believes it - because they have no evidence.
In spite of the empirical evidence, nevertheless
But the empirical evidence is all made up, by the evil scientists.
Agreed - and two different infraspecific taxa within the species to get that one new variation, not two from one as some would have us believe. And the two infraspecific taxa mated to create that one still remain the same infraspecific taxa they were. Nothing evolved into anything. Yes - your dog breeder illustrates the point perfectly - that in the beginning male and female created He them...
There is no other science but that.
Of course - doesn't even matter that all T-Rex remained T-Rex, all Triceratops remained Triceratops - from the oldest fossil found to the youngest. Just like all Husky remain Husky and all Asians remain Asians.
Accepting those observations would crush their beliefs - and so observations will be ignored.
That's your strawman. The data is there if you stop ignoring it. Asian remains Asian. Husky remains Husky. T-Rex remained T-Rex. Triceratops remained Triceratops. From the oldest fossil to the youngest ever found. Nothing evolves into anything - variation only occurs when two separate infraspecific taxa - within the species - mate.
There is no other science but that.
Of course - doesn't even matter that all T-Rex remained T-Rex, all Triceratops remained Triceratops - from the oldest fossil found to the youngest. Just like all Husky remain Husky and all Asians remain Asians.
Accepting those observations would crush their beliefs - and so observations will be ignored.
That's your strawman. The data is there if you stop ignoring it. Asian remains Asian. Husky remains Husky. T-Rex remained T-Rex. Triceratops remained Triceratops. From the oldest fossil to the youngest ever found. Nothing evolves into anything - variation only occurs when two separate infraspecific taxa - within the species - mate.
There is no other science but that.
You have given no reason to ignore the natural world and what we observe except that it doesn't agree with the theory of evolution. Theories are to be adjusted to fit the data - not the data adjusted to fit the theory.
And so you avoid the topic and participate in ad-hominem attacks as always - because we both know not a single evolutionist here can promote evolution without ignoring direct empirical evidence.
The scientific method requires repeated and repeatable observations.
Is Sherlock Holmes' "reasoning backwards" a reliable method for discovering truth?
But of-course, you may not be privy to seeing different coloured eyes amongst siblings
and ancestrally inherited physical features in a single sibling (Ginger /Red hair)
and don't get me going on mutations that are also inherited
LOL
We all need ears, eyes, and some imagination, not to mention increased brain size
You may be referring to the idea of common origins, which really has little to do with
the bulk of evolutionary facts and natural selection.
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?