the a rgument is that since a car need at least several parts to be functional its also true for living things. can you show why its not true?
It's not a valid argument as it stands (it's not really an argument at all, it's an assertion), but I have no problem with either cars or living things requiring several parts.the a rgument is that since a car need at least several parts to be functional its also true for living things. can you show why its not true?
no. i talking about a car with wheels and engine you know...
Sorry if it is a shock to your system that there are many many beliefs besides your own.When you can do something more than insults based on word play, lemme know. Until then, I've got better things to do with my time.
Sorry but I do not make friends with people who ignore an fairly easily understood post:Greetings and salutations my new friend
The question is a bit silly, the iconoclast, because it suggests that you have forgotten what you have learned in high school about evolution. Or that you do not know about Google or Wikipediawhats one example that should convince me re evolution?
You have not done this but there is a rather nasty tactic that I have seen from cranks in other forums of asking every poster in a thread the same question. It is nasty because they are trying to waste peoples time with questions they probably know the answer to. They also go on about any trivial differences between the replies in order to further waste time.
This is repeating your false understanding of a paper, xianghua, as corrected several times.incorrect but you are wlecome to believe it.
Figure 5 | Phylogenetic implications of tracks. a, Phylogeny of selected elpistostegids and stem tetrapods, based on refs 10, 12, 19 and 20, fitted to Devonian stratigraphy. The grey bar indicates replacement of elpistostegids by tetrapods in body fossil record. b, Effect of adding the Zachełmie tracks to the phylogeny: the ghost ranges of tetrapods and elpistostegids are greatly extended and the ‘changeover’ is revealed to be an artefact. Pan, ...
Sorry if it is a shock to your system that there are many many beliefs besides your own.
An ignorant assertion, Justatruthseeker, because it is well known that DNA tests do show "relatedness". Scientists compare DNA to give a "family" tree for the apes that matches the tree we get from the fossil record, etc....yet no scientists does this in any DNA test to prove relatedness.
An ignorant "problem for evolution" fantasy, xianghua. Basic biology is that there are small steps in evolution - mutations, etc.its a problem for evolution since evolution need small steps.
The irreducible complexity idiocy from xianghua, who knows that if you remove parts from a flagellum then you get a working complex biological system! That was one of the IDiots abysmal ignorance about biology - that a biological system always has the same function.if you will remove a part of a tipical complex biological system it will not work. so it cant evolve unless all the parts are in place.
A lie that evolution requires "stepwise" evolution because xianghua knows about the not stepwise Evolution of flagellabecause it cant evolve stepwise like evolution required.
An abysmally ignorant question from xianghua.let me put it this way: if we had a self replicating molecule, do you believe that it can evolve into something like a car?
Could you please give us the definition of biology that you are using? In this reality a car is not subject to processes of biology. Once we have a clue about your alternative reality we may be able to help.....this is a self replicating car so its indeed subject to the processes of biology.
You have not the foggiest clue of what reality even is actually. You simply refer to your baseless belief system as 'reality' in a cheap and crass attempt to elevate fables from the so called science fantasy factory.I am fully aware that there are many different belief systems apart from the one I hold.
The difference between us is that I judge the validity of a belief system on how well it bears up against reality.
Yes, it was Babel. That was when languages came to exist.This coming from someone that can't define their own etymological basis.
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?