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.
My dad was a checkers player. He wanted a shot at Marion Tinsley, but never got it. Tinsley was the greatest checkers champion that ever lived.Chess is bad. I almost flunked out of college in my freshman year because of chess. Luckily, after I beat the school champion I quit playing and haven't played much since.
If that was your point I misread or misunderstood it.? No game, I simply asked that you complete your sentence , “If evolution is true, then we predict that….” and provide evidence that the prediction has been validated.
Unless "species" is unambiguously defined, one cannot use it as a referent upon which to define macroevoluiton.
Algae do not breed and are something between plants and animals as creatures. The lab experiment that demonstrated the creatures propensity to go multicellular in certain environments does not evidence a new species (still need a definition). The creature very well could have always had the potential to go multicellular when necessary. As “plants” the algae produce their own food and as “animals” they can eat other plants or even their own grazers.
Unless "species" is unambiguously defined, one cannot use it as a referent upon which to define macroevoluiton.
The "interbreeding" definition of species you referenced is a definition applied to sexually reproducing animals.
Why do we need to define "macroevolution"? Evolution is just evolution. There's nothing really special about "macroevolution" other than the cumulative change between groups of individuals such that we would classify them as different species. For some types of life forms this separation might be more clear than for others.
Definitions aren't going to make evolution go away.
Shouldn't be too hard for some then, should it?One could easily think of a lot of ways
turn that back on the perp, but such lame rhetoric is beneath dignity.
This video is on the differences between chimps and humans that natural selection acting on random mutation has not explained:
Typical creationist due diligence failed to notice any of that.Have you watched the video?
It does *NOT* demonstrate in the least the "unexplained" parts of difference between chimps and humans represent a failure of natural selection.
The first 4 minutes is an extended accusation that the "98% identical" claim between human and chimp DNA accusing scientists making that claim of deception. Then they show a ~~secular~~ video that explains exactly that and why it is done.
At ~4 minutes the video just flat out claims that natural selection can't explain that and instantly makes a whole series of god claims. For the rest of the video they repeat various creationist claims and tropes and make several additional claims that natural selection couldn't do these things and "god did it".
No where in the video do they discuss the actual genetic differences and how the couldn't be from natural selection.
Just letting you know that what this "Dawkins" speaksThis has *nothing* to do with the thread or any post made in it.
Do you want to discuss things, or do you think this is a "meme board". (Hint: It's not.)
I did not reference any definition for "species". I'm still waiting for a consensus on one definition for "species" from evolutionists.The "interbreeding" definition of species you referenced is a definition applied to sexually reproducing animals.
Without definitions, "evolution" can be anything one imagines it to be; as appears to be the case. That's not how science works.Definitions aren't going to make evolution go away.
I did not reference any definition for "species". I'm still waiting for a consensus on one definition for "species" from evolutionists.
Without definitions, "evolution" can be anything one imagines it to be; as appears to be the case. That's not how science works.
How can one claim a theory for the origin of species and not define what "species" means? What is your definition for "species"?
6 pm.It is the same as waiting for an exact definition
of the line behind night and day before you belive they exist.
I did not reference any definition for "species". I'm still waiting for a consensus on one definition for "species" from evolutionists.
Without definitions, "evolution" can be anything one imagines it to be; as appears to be the case. That's not how science works.
How can one claim a theory for the origin of species and not define what "species" means? What is your definition for "species"?
Then I referenced a post; not a definition. Please be precise.You were quoting a post that used that definition ...
Another dodge on giving an unambiguous definition for "species".Species is a term from biology so ask a biologist (or read a textbook), not me.
? You have beaucoup posts in the "Creation and Evolution" forum.I'm not a biologist or "evolutionist"
No need for emotions. Don't be sorry; let's be rational about the matter and define our terms.I'm sorry that you can't accept that the concept of "species" isn't as cleanly defined as "element".
This video is on the differences between chimps and humans that natural selection acting on random mutation has not explained:
Science terminology at its best.Chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans and share nearly 99 percent of our DNA.
You are wrong. Which evolutionary scientists do you know that claim that without an exact definition of species imagination rules?I did not reference any definition for "species". I'm still waiting for a consensus on one definition for "species" from evolutionists.
Without definitions, "evolution" can be anything one imagines it to be; as appears to be the case. That's not how science works.
Once again, the definition of species is a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature but some biologists... It like a rule that we do not throw out because there are exceptions.How can one claim a theory for the origin of species and not define what "species" means? What is your definition for "species"?
What is wrong with the term "closest relatives" in describing our relationship with chimps.Science terminology at its best.
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?