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.
If the land did that most animals would go extinct. They would not evolve.
Do you believe that it takes millions of years for the desert to become a desert?
You mean read some particular current conclusion to evidence based on a particular presupposition that could be outdated and overturned in ten years?
Evolution dogma can take a hike.
It is speciation, which is an aspect of (some would say it is the aspect of) evolution. What do you think it is? And what do you think evolution is that you figure this isn't it?
What is it if it isn't evolution? What do you think evolution is?
2) A new offspring requires genetically compatible parents. Generally this means that the parents are the same species.
Occasionally members of closely related species can hybridize, usually with difficulty. The hybrid offspring, if it survives is usually sterile. Except for such hybrids, the offspring is the same species as the parents.
3) Because it has two parents, and because of mutations and ERVs and other modifications, the offspring is not identical to either parent. Genetic differences generally manifest as physical differences.
4) New traits can be strongly deleterious, in which case, it is likely the carrier will die before infecting the gene pool, or they can be neutral, or nearly neutral, and be passed on to offspring, and over a number of generations, slowly spread through the population, or they can be beneficial, in which case the spread will be a little faster because those with the new trait will live longer and have more offspring. Likewise, dominant traits will spread faster than recessive traits.
5) One of the factors determining whether a trait is beneficial or deleterious is the environment. If the environment changes or if a branch of the population expands into new territory, formerly neutral traits could become beneficial, and formerly beneficial traits could become neutral, or even deleterious. The percentage distributions of various traits will change in only a few generations, and the branch population will start looking quite different from the root stock
6) Mutations, ERV insertions, gene swapping, and broken and (mis-)repaired breakdowns in DNA will continue to happen. if the two populations don't interbreed, or only rarely interbreed, then the changes in one will not spread to the other and vice versa. They become separate populations. At some point there genetics will not be any closer than two different species that are close on the Linnean taxonomic table. They may even be no longer be able to reproduce. Were it not for old records, it might not be absolutely possible to prove that they ever were able to interbreed.
That's it. That is evolution. What in evolution is it that you are having issues with? (I suspect that it is point 6, but I have no idea what you might think is wrong with it)
How did the flood cause an ice age? You've asserted this many times, but never explained it.
They gained cecal valves. They didn't have them before. We kow this because they were studied before they came to the island, and we still have the population they came from, which doesn't have the feature. It wasn't there before. Now it is. These are the facts.
Evolution is change, and does not have a direction. "Better" and "worse" relate only to fitting in to the demands of the environment today, and have no objective meaning in evolution. If tomorrow, the land should dry up and become a desert, "better" or "worse" changes would mean one thing, but if the land should flood, they would mean the opposite.
And which of my six points is that? None. It seems that you are having issues with certain conclusions, not with evolution itself.I think you already know what any opponent of Darwinian Evolution has a problems with. It is this:
All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences.
All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
The hominoids are descendants of a common ancestor.
Because your drastic environment change is not compatible with the millions of years it takes Darwinian evolution to happen. It is also not compatible with "the present is the key to the past".
The dinosaurs died in a world wide flood by the way and the ones surviving on the ark died out because of the drastic climate changes brought on by that very flood. (Short ice age)
There is no "evolution dogma." There is creationism, though. Actually, I just read that again, and you managed to contradict yourself in two sentences.
If evolution is dogma, then how can it be overturned in ten years? You guys are soooooo confused, its sad to watch.
I haven't seen any "truth" from creationists here, and I've been posting here for years.
How many times do you have to be told that natural selection is a mechanism of evolution? Ten? Fifty? One Hundred???
EVolution use to teach that evolution does go from less complexs to more complex.
The real science shot them down so they have to change their tune. DNA has done the same thing. The more science has proven, the less likely evolution is a valid idea.
Since we don't prove anything in science, I guess that means all of science is dogma. Wheeeeeeeeee! I love creato-logic!If you can't prove what evolution preahes, it is dogma.
Evolution is entirely based on evidence and we never try to "prove" anything. If you can't get anything else into your head, please at least remember that much.What is truly sad is evolutionists trying to prove a theory that acvtually contradicts known science. What are we sooooooo confused about? Be specific.
OK. Of course it can be from a mutation in the germ cells. They can also aquire traits that are not expressed in the parent as well. I'm not sure where you think you are going with this line of argument, but I'm sure its a Dead End.Try this on for size: The children cannot acquire a trait for which one or both parents did not have the gene for.
Wow... not only do I have dogma, I don't even understand it! Thank goodness you are here to explain my dogma to me!!You do no even understand your own dogma. But since you know it all, tell us how natural selection is a mechanism for evolution.
The evos keep saying that but they never explain how it results in a change a specie..
How can the inability to mate be a mechanism for evolution?
The KIND that no longer can mate, become extinct.
The one that can keep producing salamnders. What did these salamanders eventujall evolve into?
Evolution is a species becoming a differet species.
That is nonsense. A group cannot evolve all at the same time. If evolution is true, an individual must change first.
Genetically compatible parents ALWAYS produce "after its kind." That is how genetics work.
That is the usual evo mumbo jumbo. If the offspring is the same species as the paretns, there is no evolution and the hybrid, if it lives cannot continue the change. Not only that, the hybrid rabbit is still a rabbit.
More mumbo jumbo. Mutations ae not a mechanism for evolution. They do not add characteristics. They only alter the characteristic the kid would have gotten. The mutation did not add skin to the kid, it altered the skin the kid got.
Whatever trait you want to take the kid with, it will still be the exact same species as its parents.
The enviornment is not a mechanism for evolution. If the species cannot adapt, it becomes extinct. If it adapts, it is still the exact same species as its parents and will only produce kids that are "after its kind."
That which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed wihout evidence.
Here is my whole problem with evolution: traits can only be given to the offspring if one or both parents have the gene for the trait. That is proven genetics and there are no exceptions.
Now if you can refute that fact, you will have a leg to stand on. If you are going to put your faith in mutations, then you need to provide the evidece that makes it possible.
There is a theory that before the flood there was a water canopy over the earth making it like a greenhouse, with constant temperatures. This water campopy was part of the water of the flood. In Gen 7:11, it is called the "floodgatesof the sky." When this canopy was no longer available, the extreem weather we get at the poles and equatator came into being.
Can we prove it. No, but this canopy kept the radiation of the sun off of those living on the earth and they started dying earlier. Before the flood men lived up to 800-900 years. After the flood the lifespan was down to 200 years in about 3-4 generations.
Cecal valves could hve beencause by a mutation or it could be tghe result of a recessive gene. Since you can't check for a cecal valve in the fosils, it could have been there all along.
It really doesn't matter.
They remainded the same species and only produced after it kind.
The lizards were studied BEFORE they went on the island. They didn't have cecal valves then. They weren't there. Period. Point blank. End of story.
And even if we didn't, we still have examples of the population they came from - which DON'T have cecal valves, or the DNA for it. They don't express the cecal valves when put into similar situations - only these ones do. So, no, it couldn't have 'been there all along'. If it was, the other lizards would have the DNA for it, other lizards in the species would express it. They don't. Just the ones on this island.
Cognitive dissonance is one thing, but the information is practically slapping you in the face.
It does. It really, really does.
That's not even the point I'm arguing against, so I don't know why you're bringing that up. I think you're confusing me with Ollie, the guy who's currently taking the sisyphean task of trying to educate you.
It never taught that.
Evolution is just change, be it a gain or a loss in complexity.
Since we don't prove anything in science, I guess that means all of science is dogma. Wheeeeeeeeee! I love creato-logic!
Evolution is entirely based on evidence and we never try to "prove" anything. If you can't get anything else into your head, please at least remember that much.
OK. Of course it can be from a mutation in the germ cells.
They can also aquire traits that are not expressed in the parent as well.
]Wow... not only do I have dogma, I don't even understand it! Thank goodness you are here to explain my dogma to me!!
Look up "natural selection" on the internet. I'm sure you will find a definition somewhere.
Have you never heard of recessive genes. DNA does not give traits, the genes of the parents do that. What was the DNA of each one? You are so focused on one thing , you seem to forget they ware both STILL LIZARDS
When you read it, you'll accept it.
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?