|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 1 From: Austin, TX, US Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
One mechanism" of evolution? Mutation selected by natural selection is the only story out there is it not? No you also have mutation and human selection, the reason you have so many species of dogs, livestock ..... How many generations does it take for a cow to change into something else? firstly you have to define something else a new species by most definitions is a new species cant mate with the original species. Or as scientists like to call it speciation. Depends on the selective pressures. An experiment by William Rice using one species of fruit flies produced 2 species that did not mate with each other in only 35 generations. tough creos like you tend say well their still fruit flies, if this is the case in your instance please provide the amount of change that needs to happen before a species is something else. Cause i might show you examples of how lizards stoped laying eggs and started giving live birth, or mice stuck on an island producing 8 different species...... And id get a silly anwser back like they r still mice bla bla bla
Natural selection can only select for an existing trait, correct? Correct be it that this trait was the result of a mutation in this individual or already present in the individuals parents.
How do you falsify the evo dogma? Simple find something that could not have evolved kinda tough cause i cant think of anything or how it would look like. Find no relation between species in their dna structure, prove there are no good mutations.......... there are tones of ways to falsify evolution tough none of them do it has been tried for so long to falsify evolution that evolution became a fact. If you want to get a nobel prize loads of cash, and make your bible stomping friends happy read up on evolution so you know something about it not the silly ideas most creos have about evolution. And then ask yourself if evolution is true then this must also be true if it is not then evolution is not true. Do the research and i guarantee you that if you find something that disproves evolution you will get the nobel prize and tones of cash. Why did i tell you to read up on evolution first well because creos have silly notions like when i see an ape in the zoo give birth to a human il believe in evolution. Well guess what if i saw that i would go to church and believe in god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Classifications are a human creation and they really tell us nothing about facts. What they do however allow is for uncritical evolutionists to draw inference that supports there theory. Very circular. The theory supports the classification the classification proves the theory. It is also the case that your failure to understand science does not constitute a valid critique of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
How fortunate it is that science is not limited by the inability of creationists to think of things getting personal. Sign of a weak argument. Who said I was a creationists? You just proved my dogma point. all I have stated is my personal critical arguments against darwinian evolution. Any such questions must be met with contempt. I have my faith you have yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
havoc writes: jar writes: Did you look at the information I supplied for the classification of Homo sapiens sapiens? Classifications are a human creation and they really tell us nothing about facts. What they do however allow is for uncritical evolutionists to draw inference that supports there theory. Very circular. The theory supports the classification the classification proves the theory. HUH? Classifications are a human construct of course, just as names are a human construct. Do you understand what those classifications tell us about FACTS? What does Animalia tell us about humans? What does Chordata tell us? What does Mammalia say about humans? What does Primates tell us about ourselves? Each of those classifications tells us about facts. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Classifications are a human creation and they really tell us nothing about facts. Linnaean taxonomy is certain a human creation that can be arbitrary at times. Where to draw the line between genera and family is certainly an arbitrary decision. However, the nested hierarchy is a fact, a fact that evolution predicts we should see. ID/creationism does not make this prediction. The theory of evolution predicts which mixtures of characteristics we should and should not see in both living and fossil species. This is how you test the theory. We should see species with a mixture of reptilian and mammalian features, but we should NOT see a mixture of avian and mammalian features. Therefore, an animal that has mammary glands and lays leathery eggs like the platypus is consistent with evolution while a bird with mammary glands and three middle ear bones would not. A majory violation of the nested hierarchy would be obvious to everyone, and it would be allowable for ID/creationism. So why don't we see any?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I have my faith you have yours.
Projection is not an argument. We have the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Darwin said a feature that could not exisit through a series of small changes. Behe coined "ireducible complexity" to falsify under these terms. Behe never demonstrated that IC systems could not evolve. In fact, IC systems were predicted to be a product of evolution in 1918:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
How many generations does it take for a cow to change into something else? It will never happen. You don't evolve out of your ancestry. In the tree of life you are always a part of the branch you came from. You never clip yourself off from a branch and attach somewhere else. What can happen is that the biodiversity of cows can increase, and perhaps even new species of cow will evolve. Think of all the dog breeds that have emerged from their wolf ancestors and how the wolf is still a dog as are all of the dog breeds. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
getting personal. Sign of a weak argument. Who said I was a creationists? You just proved my dogma point. all I have stated is my personal critical arguments against darwinian evolution. Any such questions must be met with contempt. I have my faith you have yours. Did you have a point, or are you just whining?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
A majory violation of the nested hierarchy would be obvious to everyone, and it would be allowable for ID/creationism. So why don't we see any? Major being the most important word here. We dont find mermaids or pegasus and this is somehow evidence for evolution. Thats a weak argument. When examples are found it is chalked up to the catch all of convergance. Man made things can also be "nested" Does not prove they evolved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
Did you have a point, or are you just whining? My point is that I offerd a couple critical points about your beloved theory and you assume I am such and such. DOGMA Desent must be destroyed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
Behe never demonstrated that IC systems could not evolve. In fact, IC systems were predicted to be a product of evolution in 1918:
That is not the same. Your quote says "asset" each part would therefore have a selectable function. That makes sence. however if you have a muliple part machine inwhich each part is useless without the others this could neve evolve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My point is that I offerd a couple critical points about your beloved theory and you assume I am such and such. DOGMA Desent must be destroyed. It's a fair bet that anyone being grossly and foolishly wrong about evolution is a creationist. However, if you will tell us that you are not a creationist, and what you are instead, then I shall believe you, because you are of course deluded when you pretend that I am dogmatic on this subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
It will never happen. You don't evolve out of your ancestry. In the tree of life you are always a part of the branch you came from. You never clip yourself off from a branch and attach somewhere else. What can happen is that the biodiversity of cows can increase, and perhaps even new species of cow will evolve. Think of all the dog breeds that have emerged from their wolf ancestors and how the wolf is still a dog as are all of the dog breed. Your quoting Genesis. Kinds reproduce after there own kinds. The cow thing came up because someone on your side said that you can get darker or lighter cows and this proves evolution. My point is that it variation within the limits of the existing info available.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
It's a fair bet that anyone being grossly and foolishly wrong about evolution is a creationist. However, if you will tell us that you are not a creationist, and what you are instead, then I shall believe you, because you are of course deluded when you pretend that I am dogmatic on this subject. Why not just engage in debate. you can call me what ever you like but the facts dont change.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024