N
neophyte
Guest
That’s beyond funny. I call Poe - there’s no way someone could really be this ignorant.
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
Go and learn the difference between a species and a clade. Both “rat” and “cat” are clades, not species. There is more than one species of rat and more than one species of cat. Unless you understand the difference you will make elementary errors. Lack of understanding can be cured by learning. “An intelligent mind acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” - Proverbs 18:15.
So? Irreversibility is not part of the definition of a biological species. Your point is irrelevant to the question.
rossum
Last edited:
U
Uriel1
Guest
Clades, really? Which museum houses their common ancestor you’ve been looking for for 150 years?Uriel1:
Go and learn the difference between a species and a clade. Both “rat” and “cat” are clades, not species. There is more than one species of rat and more than one species of cat. Unless you understand the difference you will make elementary errors. Lack of understanding can be cured by learning. “An intelligent mind acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” - Proverbs 18:15.
So? Irreversibility is not part of the definition of a biological species. Your point is irrelevant to the question.
rossum
We’d like to know because “an intelligent mind acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” - Proverbs 18:15.
Caritate non ficta
Last edited:
U
Uriel1
Guest
and the proof is where?
Even Darwin was afraid his hypothesis would not be published because he feared it did not meet the scientific standards of the 1850’s (lack of evidence)
Caritate non ficta
U
Usagi
Guest
Um, allele change is the entire basis of evolution, and causes phenotypic changes in the organism. Allele changes that reproductively isolate different populations (as rossum explains was the case in the experiment in question) would qualify as species changes.
Indeed, at least when I was in college 25 years ago, the modern definition of “evolution” was “change in allele frequency in a population over time.”
Indeed, at least when I was in college 25 years ago, the modern definition of “evolution” was “change in allele frequency in a population over time.”
U
Usagi
Guest
It’s been more than a century and a half since Darwin’s time. We haven’t been idle in gathering evidence since then.
U
Uriel1
Guest
Yes, exactly. And in which museum can we look at the common ancestor between chimps and humans, or did we fail to find it in those 150 years? How long was the Piltsdown fraud skull held from inspection by the British Museum and why. Similarly for Nebraska man; why have desperate anti theists carried out these frauds?
U
Uriel1
Guest
You are a Neophyte of Neo Darwinism which itself depends on abiogenesis as a starting point. When and where was this ever carried out in a Lab?Uriel1:
That’s beyond funny. I call Poe - there’s no way someone could really be this ignorant.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
I did a internet search and it said they all died from choking on Avocado seeds. Except for one male and one female that random mutations had luckily provided for them large Avocado seeds accommodating throats.Techno2000:
They spent too much time on the internet answering the same creationist questions endlessly repeated and not enough time finding food.
rossum
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
The same museum that houses Adam and Eve’s bones that you have been looking for for 6,000 years. Ask me again in 5,850 years.
rossum
E
Ecclesiastes
Guest
Perhaps the picture is in error but why should evolution be a once and over phenomenon? Why don’t we see ever see re-evolution? Should not evolution sometimes be continuously repeating itself with the same ancient species evolving from a now existing more ancient species?
Last edited:
E
Ecclesiastes
Guest
If the theory of evolution is based on an entirely random process, how could God know that we humans would ever evolve? Did God ever need evolution in the creation of man? Why isn’t evolution inferred from the Story of Creation as told in Genesis?
B
Bradskii
Guest
The stupid hurts. It really does. Someone please make it go away.
R
rossum
Guest
Evolution adapts living organisms to their environment. Sometimes, as you say, that means new species look like old species. For example, Tuna, Ichthyosaurs and Dolphins all have the same general body shape because they are all adapted for moving fast in water.
However, sometimes the environment is not the same as it was, so old species go extinct and do no reappear. For example, Wooly Mammoths and Wooly Rhinos lived during the Ice Ages. Once the ice retreated those animals went extinct and have not reappeared.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Why isn’t the existence of America inferred from the Story of Creation as told in Genesis?
There are a great many things that are not mentioned in Genesis. Can you find a mention of the planet Neptune there?
rossum
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This thread is about Darwinism, which does not depend on abiogenesis. It makes no claims about the beginning of all life.
M
mVitus
Guest
Rossum did a nice explanation. But I would point out something that may fit your definition of re-evolution: whales.
Did God need evolution to create man? No. But whether He did use evolution to create man is a different question. One to which I’d respond, “Yes.”
As for Genesis, it uses figurative language in describing some important truths. A catholic.com tract is of great interest here.
To me, viewing Genesis 1 through that figurative lens and how it contrasts to other creation stories of the Near East really makes the lessons come alive.
R
rossum
Guest
Abiogenesis has been carried out in the lab exactly as many times as a deity creating a new species has been carried out in a lab. And your point is?
Suppose it was proved that life on earth started from a half-eaten sandwich left behind by a passing party of interstellar picnickers from planet Zargon IX. What changes would be made to the theory of evolution as a result? None.
All evolution requires is that life on earth originated somehow. Evolution deals with the development of life after it originated.
Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life on earth. The Zarginian hypothesis is a variant of the Panspermia hypothesis of abiogenesis, and evolutionary theory is well aware of the Panspermia hypothesis already. Once again your sources are misinforming you.
rossum
U
Uriel1
Guest
Still waitingUsagi:
Yes, exactly. And in which museum can we look at the common ancestor between chimps and humans, or did we fail to find it in those 150 years? How long was the Piltsdown fraud skull held from inspection by the British Museum and why. Similarly for Nebraska man; why have desperate anti theists carried out these frauds?
S
Shakuhachi
Guest
So…let’s assume creationism instead?
- Status