|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4369 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
The sameness of bears and dogs is hinted at in the fossil record. Also the similarities of them is apparent when looking close at them
There is no confusing humans with apes upon observation of them in the nude. Technical similarity only accounts for a portion of ones looks. Posture and use of body stance specks loudly also. This however is a sideline as We argue the same blueprint provides a same result for needs of creatures. Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The observation of speciation has never been observed in all its glory to produce results that last in the natural world. To the contrary, we've observed countless instances of new, persistent species.
However say on a island where one bird has speciated to fill many niches as occured as not been witnessed. Of course not, as that takes many, many generations - more generations, in fact, that we've had the Theory of Evolution. But there are many, many examples where we can trace divergent, adapted populations back to a single population of ancestors, like the cichlid fish of Lake Victoria:
quote: In this complex world it is easily explained that the mechanism I need hasn't been discovered yet. Why bother with your ridiculous, ad hoc, unknown magic mechanism when we have two mechanisms we already know about - natural selection and random mutation - that are more than adequate? This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-25-2004 02:29 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The sameness of bears and dogs is hinted at in the fossil record. As is the sameness of humans and apes.
There is no confusing humans with apes upon observation of them in the nude. Personally, I choose to remain clothed when observing apes and humans, but that's just me. At any rate, if you're regularly confusing bears and dogs, I would reccommend putting your clothes back on, or at least your glasses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
I repeat. Please list the criteria that you used to determine that they (dogs and bears) look alike. What other animals fall into the dog/bear "kind"? How often do you confuse these animals with dogs or bears?
The sameness of bears and dogs is hinted at in the fossil record As is the sameness of apes and humans. Therefore humans and apes are the same "kind".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
The sameness of bears and dogs is hinted at in the fossil record. Also the similarities of them is apparent when looking close at them.
Yeah, I get Shih-Tzus mixed up with Kodiak bears all the time, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Yeah, I get Shih-Tzus mixed up with Kodiak bears all the time, too. That must be why they call you "lefty".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4369 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
These mechaisms have not been observed. It is speculation that they occured. The minor occurances of speciation (if its agreed this happened) prove the difficulty of it and anyways are unique. I have no problem with speciation being observed today and welcome it.
Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4369 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
No there is no hint of human/ape ancestry. Just interpretations of scraps of bone.
Its not relevant what other creatures fit (if so) into the bear/dog kind. Its just basic body type.Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
These mechaisms have not been observed. What are you talking about? Natural selection and random mutation have been observed, over and over again. Of course they've been observed.
It is speculation that they occured. No, it's observation. We've observed these mechanisms and their effects, time and time again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
No there is no hint of human/ape ancestry. Not so. We have the same kind of evidence linking humans and apes as the kind that links father and child in paternity tests.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: No, there is no hint of created kinds. Just interpretations of scraps of bone and flesh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Its not relevant what other creatures fit (if so) into the bear/dog kind. Its just basic body type. It is relevant since you won't provide the criteria that you're using to determine that bears are dogs are the same "kind". Because you're refusing to provide this information I'm trying to get other examples from you of the bear/dog "kind" in order to determine what you're using for sorting criteria. For the third time. What criteria are you using to determine that bears and dogs look the same? What is this basic body type? What other organisms are in this "kind"? Humans and apes share similar morphology why are they not the same "kind"? This message has been edited by DrJones*, 09-27-2004 05:54 PM *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6476 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
That might be true if you IGNORE over 30 years of molecular biology which also overwhelmingly supports human/ape common ancestry...you seem to be pretty good at maintaining your ignorance of entire disciplines of science...way to go
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4369 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
No way. First this is recent in the century. Second it is not verified that DNA is saying it is related to ancestry as opposed to similarity.
DNA is still a new thing and you guys shouldn't be grasping at it for survival. Its too atomic for all of us Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4369 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Creation is a sef evident thing. We exist and so does the natural world. Its Toe that says this evidence is wrong.
Yes hoever all that is talked about in Toe is interpretation of bones and flesh. Surely our observation of the world now trumps interpretations of scanty data that changes with every new graduation class in small circles.Rob
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024