Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is True Because Life Needs It
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 188 (653879)
02-25-2012 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Panda
02-23-2012 11:54 AM


Re: Prompt for Portillo...
quote:
I'll ask again...
Do you accept that this:
could evolve into this:
?
Yes, I think so. Variation within a kind is what I would call it.
If a bunch of cats were left in a harsh climate for some reason they could have a gene that allows them to adapt that was already present in their DNA. Although i'm not really sure how it works. The envioronment would have to suit atleast some to pass on a dominant gene that lets them survive. I guess it's all about location and the felines that are located there?
Extinction is possible too.
I'm not talking so much about - (macro) as I am (micro) - for a lack of better terms.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Panda, posted 02-23-2012 11:54 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2012 9:06 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 124 by Panda, posted 02-25-2012 2:04 PM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 128 of 188 (657933)
04-01-2012 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Portillo
04-01-2012 12:47 AM


Re: Prompt for Portillo...
Hi Portillo. Classifications to me is not the barrier stopping the animals from evolving into one another. The classes really don't matter in the grand scheme of things I dont think.
What's to say that feline and canine can't be merged into one class based on similiar features and genetics? Just because they are classed differently doesn't mean a cat can't evolve into a fox or vice versa. Maybe they actually are the same "kind" just classed seperatly.
That's why I think it's a good start to try and see if we can define what a "kind" is. It's going to be broader possibly (in a sense) than the current classifications I think.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Portillo, posted 04-01-2012 12:47 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by bluescat48, posted 04-01-2012 9:26 PM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 130 of 188 (657993)
04-01-2012 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Portillo
04-01-2012 12:47 AM


Re: Prompt for Portillo...
Portillo I wanted to add something to my comment. I don't believe it was God who catagorized the classifications. So there is room for wiggle room IMO. But one thing that you or I can't do (IMO) is say that certain animals cannot "change over" into other classifications that were classified by scientists that developed the classifications themselves.
Its not consistent with our position. If advocates for evolution are responsible for the classifications themselves then we cannot apply our own limits to them when arguing for what can evolve into what. Do you see what I mean?
I'm not arguing against what your saying just clarifying it. That's why I think there needs to be a broader yet more precise definition of kinds and the classifications can be viewed in not such a strict manner.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Portillo, posted 04-01-2012 12:47 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024