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.
Just by saying that, you show that you don't understand what you just agreed with.you are correct. But we have no missing links that unite two different types of animals. So evolution fails on a macro level.
Sir your entire argument revolves around ring species and micro evolution among species, which no one denies. But those are nit different animals. can you provide the same evidence at the genus level? And this is where evolution fails.Here I am, teaching evolution to a creationist even though I consider it an indulgent waste of time. Can't be any worse than video games, I guess.
It's hard to tell what you're tying to say, because taken at face value your words make no sense. Phylogeny is the study of the evolutionary history of a species. Taxonomy is the system by which different organisms are classified. Phylogeny is a useful tool for taxonomists, not an alternative system developed to accommodate some "barrier."
Did you mean that there is a physical barrier beyond which a species cannot possibly evolve? Take modern wolves, for example. Are you saying they could never, in any number of generations, evolve into something you wouldn't recognize as the same species? If so, where is your evidence? Remember, even if no one directly watched it happen, that's not evidence that it's impossible, which is the argument you're making.
Oh, there's all kinds of interspecies copulation. You've clearly never been on a farmBut I think you meant that animals generally only reproduce within their own species, and that's true enough for the most part. That's no surprise seeing as that's part of the definition of "species."
But that's neither here nor there. No one is suggesting that evolution happens via cross-species interbreeding. Evolution happens on the population-level, not the individual level. Evolution occurs when certain traits are favored by environmental pressures and others aren't. When the environment changes, so do the traits expressed in the population. After enough changes in the environment happen, the population can have changed so dramatically that they are no longer reproductively compatible (cannot mate or produce fertile offspring) with members of the species from which they originated. This is called speciation, and it's been observed directly in rapidly-reproducing populations like fruit flies. It takes much longer for a population to evolve so dramatically that it requires a brand new genus to be named for it, but there's no evidence suggesting that it can't happen. There's no evidence suggesting that it can't happen past any taxonomic level, in fact. I know that's your main objection, that evolution cannot occur past the genus level, so I await your evidence supporting that. And do keep in mind what counts and what doesn't count as evidence.
No, it doesn’t, that’s just some random word association you’ve spurted out. The burden of proof is on you to prove it can’t happen, not on scientists to prove it did, since your whole argument in this thread is that “macro” evolution can’t happen and therefore evolutionary explanations for morality don’t work. Your thesis contains a premise that goes against the scientific consensus, and that alone is evidence that your thesis is wrong, as we established in other threads.Sir your entire argument revolves around ring species and micro evolution among species, which no one denies. But those are nit different animals. can you provide the same evidence at the genus level? And this is where evolution fails.
Don't you get it? His claim is negative, so it's logically fallacious of you to demand he supports his claim. It's your burden to prove his claim wrong, other wise you're shifting the burden of proof, derp!No, it doesn’t, that’s just some random word association you’ve spurted out. The burden of proof is on you to prove it can’t happen, not on scientists to prove it did, since your whole argument in this thread is that “macro” evolution can’t happen and therefore evolutionary explanations for morality don’t work. Your thesis contains a premise that goes against the scientific consensus, and that alone is evidence that your thesis is wrong, as we established in other threads.
sir taxonomy of the genus level has a barrier to it, a barrier that evolution cannot cross that is the sole reason why they started using differnt classifications for animals "phylogeny". But again animals mate within there respective genra. A monkey literally will not mate with a man, and vice versa (and reproduce fertile offspring). So there that is proof they are separate animals as I have said. So your premise that animals are related through universal common ancestry, fails when those changes can't reproduce fertile offspring. You may claim to have an example that I am unaware of, but so far no one has revealed one.
I have another very important question to ask of everyone.
I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone... that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist? Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.
If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality. But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?
ok, I never said it can't happen. so yes, the burden still lies on you to prove it did happen, you basically say it can happen and you have good reason to believe it did happen, as well as the majority of science on your side. But evidence alludes you for some reason. Call me skeptical.No, it doesn’t, that’s just some random word association you’ve spurted out. The burden of proof is on you to prove it can’t happen, not on scientists to prove it did, since your whole argument in this thread is that “macro” evolution can’t happen and therefore evolutionary explanations for morality don’t work. Your thesis contains a premise that goes against the scientific consensus, and that alone is evidence that your thesis is wrong, as we established in other threads.
yes I have heard this before but no one was able to prove that animals lose the ability to mate with previous generations, simply because those animals are extinct by this point, so it remains unverified.We don't propose that species mate outside their species (that's literally how we define the term for the most part). Instead the process happens as populations diverge, where one species separates and becomes two, losing at some point the ability to mate and produce viable offspring.
yes I have heard this before but no one was able to prove that animals lose the ability to mate with previous generations, simply because those animals are extinct by this point, so it remains unverified.
yes I have heard this before but no one was able to prove that animals lose the ability to mate with previous generations, simply because those animals are extinct by this point, so it remains unverified.
No, you did indeed say it can’t happen when you suggested that there is some kind of barrier preventing changes over generations to cross over the genus level. Even if that we’re true, moral instincts themselves in humans don’t have to have been inherited from generations that far back. So that objection is invalid.ok, I never said it can't happen. so yes, the burden still lies on you to prove it did happen, you basically say it can happen and you have good reason to believe it did happen, as well as the majority of science on your side. But evidence alludes you for some reason. Call me skeptical.
Ring species are a pretty good example. Ring species are separated in space the same way a line of generations is separated in time.
so like I said, please provide proof of this. I understand everyone and their brother has a theory, I don't want that. I want the facts.We have current examples of animals going through the process, the genetic record, and the fossil record.
Then we can track genetic and morphological similarity and even see where viral insertions were made along the various genomes to verify.
so like I said, please provide proof of this. I understand everyone and their brother has a theory, I don't want that. I want the facts.
so you have proof that a ring species cannot mate with another ring species?
That was what I was saying has no evidence.
What I mentioned are the facts.
If you want a good introduction to the science of evolutionary biology I recommend:
https://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Analysis-5th-Jon-Herron/dp/0321616677
My edition came complete with answers to creationist complaints in evolutionary models and explanation of the evidence for biological evolution and a through exploration of the literature.
You can read about endogenous retroviruses and how they provide evidence for common decent here:
Evidence for the Evolutionary Model
Since you are under the impression that ring species is singular when it is actually plural, it's is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about, so your claim that there is no evidence is just something you made up. Because if you actually knew one way or the other, you'd have to understand what a ring species is first, and you obviously don't.
Have a look at this.
Species 1 can breed with species 2.
Species 2 can breed with both species 1 and species 3.
Species 3 can breed with both species 2 and species 4.
And so on, around the ring.
Each species is a little more different that the one before it. The differences between two consecutive species are so slight that it's not a barrier to successful interbreeding. But by the time we get all the way around to species 7, it is so different that it can't interbreed with species 1 anymore, even though each species can interbreed with the next species in line.
But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?
Ah, I see we have a psychopath in our presence.Carry around a revolver filled with blanks and a pair of clean underwear.
Point the revolver at the atheist and tell him to give you a good reason why you shouldn't kill him.
Tell him that the absolute command "Thou Shalt Not Kill" comes from God and since God doesn't exist, there's no transcendent reason why you should obey it.
Pull the trigger six times.
Give him the clean pair of underwear and tell him to reconsider his life choices.
In all seriousness, atheists worship a god of their own creation - their own ability and reason. Until that idol is crushed, they will not have ears to hear. Jesus said not to cast pearls before swine.
it was refuted here:
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/06/t...//www.evolutionarymodel.com/evolutionnews.htm
there are several more articles if that one is not enough.
(no thanks on the book)
But I will write a review of it, a negative review because macro evolution is unobserved.
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?