- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 3,999
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Please provide your demonstration that this is the case.
But first, show that your statement is not a strawman.
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.
DNA is far to complex for it to have come into being by accident..
you are quite right. DNA is far too complex to have come into being by accident. That is why scientists hold that it came into being by the orderly operation of a stochastic process.DNA is far to complex for it to have come into being by accident..
you are quite right. DNA is far too complex to have come into being by accident. That is why scientists hold that it came into being by the orderly operation of a stochastic process.
Please provide your demonstration that this is the case.
But first, show that your statement is not a strawman.
-_- but the post you were responding to wasn't about this topic. I don't interrupt conversations with material from previous ones unless said material contradicts claims currently being made. Which is not the case here.
Furthermore, I have never once stated that it is typical for a single mutation to result in a species transition. It is hypothetically possible (I can only imagine it occurring in asexual species and species with hermaphrodites). Plus, the definition of species as it applies to bacteria which uses percent genomic similarity to define species most definitely means that an organism can transition to another species via a single ADDITIONAL mutation (because populations are mutating continuously). However, it is extremely unlikely that a single mutation in a bacterium would be so large as to result in the offspring being a different species than the parent.
-_- by that logic, humans and chimpanzees are the same species. How do you not realize that the lowest taxonomy category shared by all lizards is broader than the one humans share with chimps? How can you even justify this view when the capacity to reproduce to produce fertile offspring is such a huge component in species labels in animals?
So sayeth the guy that thinks my bearded dragon is the same species as a Komodo dragon. Even the people that try to categorize animals as "kinds" generally don't try to say that "kinds" means species or assert that all lizards are the same species.
-_- to assume that bacteria would have to become "not bacteria" to demonstrate evolution is more outrageous than viewing a lineage of dogs giving rise to a 6 legged herbivore as "not evolution". That's a kingdom level classification transition, of which there have been less than 10 in the over 3.5 billion years life has existed on this planet. For that to even occur would likely demand the annihilation of all members of at least one of the already existing kingdoms just so that enough niches are opened up.
Lol, what? All I said is that the only thing mutations can't feasibly do is make reproductively incompatible species become compatible. The reason isn't because one can't determine the changes necessary to accomplish it, but rather that the mutations required for it to occur are extremely numerous, specific, and have no selective pressures for them. There are tons of mutations that can result in extra limbs, muscles, the formation of eyes, etc. But in order for two incompatible lineages to re-merge, both populations would have to experience extraordinarily similar mutations in conjunction with mutations that eliminate factors that made them incompatible to begin with, such as differences in chromosome number.
No such thing has ever been observed, so I see no issues here. Care to point the ones you see out? That is, there is no indication ever of organisms that can't reproduce with each other being able to do so later on thanks to mutation. Perhaps from hybridization with a third species that is compatible with both, but never via mutation. Evolution doesn't have to explain phenomena that have never been observed; no theory has to do that.
Its not my case. It is the case of most real scientists.
You need evidence that demonstrates natural selection?
Really?
You need it proved to you that natural selection is a valid idea?
The idea, that says that those best equipped to survive in a certain environment, will be most likely to survive?
You don't buy that idea?
You think that the worst equipped to survive, are the most likely to survive?
You know.... there is this line beyond which I can no longer take people seriously. You just crossed it.
Ignorance is bliss.
Plenty of people have presented you with evidence, me included.
Why would I do it again?
Einstein once defined "insanity" as doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting different results.
Apparantly you didn't get the joke.
The gif is from an interview with dawkins concerning an interview he did with some woman of some creationist organization.
She kept saying "show me the evidence, show me the evidence"
Dawkins kept responding with evidence "here, this and that..."
And she kept coming back "show me the evidence, show me the evidence..." while completely ignoring the evidence presented.
Exactly like you keep doing.
There comes a point where it becomes an exercise in futility.
And you have no evidence for your claim.
The difference between us is that you actually believe what you are claiming without evidence and want other people to believe it for no reason, while I don't actually believe in a statue of Elvis on Pluto. I'm just using it as a rhetorical device to show your argument for what it is.
Why would a detailed exposition of the theory of evolution be part of an archaeology class?
Ah, OK - 68 years ago, that might explain it; you seem to have forgotten what they taught you.
Go check your course notes.
Examples of natural selection? All living things that die of natural causes.
You have not presented the science behind your so-called evidence. No one, including you has presented the evidence for natural selection. You don't even understand your own rhetoric,
Do you really not understand that the ability to survive, is not a mechanism for a species changing?
Thanks for admitting you can't prove one thing you believie about evolution.
Ignorance is bliss.
You have not presented the science behind your so-called evidence. No one, including you has presented the evidence for natural selection. You don't even understand your own rhetoric,
I guess jokes are all you have. You certainly don't have any evidence.
I can prove after heir kind and you can't disprove it and it refutes evolution.
You can't prove common descent
or anything else he "TOE preaches.
Which is not relevant to the facts of evolution, which existing life is subject to.You have no clue what the first life for was
, how it originated
or what it became
Your whole theology starts with a guess
LIAR
Remember this....
Evidence shown to Omega
or this
Evidence shown to Omega
or this
Evidence shown to Omega
or this
Evidence shown to Omega
or this
Evidence shown to Omega
or this
Evidence shown to Omega
or this
Evidence shown to Omega
or this
Evidence shown to Omega
So what? The theory of evolution is not about physical chemistry, it's about how God brought about the diversity of life.When they can prove it, get back to me. They can't even explain how the elements came into existence.
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?