E
edwest211
Guest
There it is. Best answer.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
No. It’s observation based speculation. That’s what evolution is. And it’s happening now, mostly in groups of organisms from one species that have become reproductively isolated in environments that are slightly different from the one from which they derived. The Faroe Islands mouse is a good example. Sometimes whole species are changing due to an environmental change favouring a mutation which gradually spreads to all subsequent generations. Lactose tolerance in humans would be an example of that. Recent observations of cichlid fishes in African Lakes seem to be combinations of the two.Ok, I re-read it, nothing like this is occuring in the real world now. If so please give me an example, if not then its pure speculation .
Wrong , my grandfather and I aren’t morphing into a completely different species.
- No individual of any organism ever has morphed into a completely different species. That’s not what a ‘transitional’ organism does.
- You and your grandfather are almost certainly transitional in terms of human evolution. The idea that we are the best there is is probably wishful thinking. It is not clear whether modern humans are yet reproductively incompatible with ancient ones, but we differ significantly morphologically and genetically. Future humans are likely to breed out most hereditary diseases, and enjoy universal lactose tolerance. This is happening right now.
E
edwest211
Guest
There is no explanation for the creation of novel organs.
R
rossum
Guest
I have already posted my population growth spreadsheet on one of these threads. If you do not understand compound interest then you will have to go to a mathematics class until you do.Of course you can’t show any of this happening in the real world, it’s pure speculation that such things happen . What do you mean by outperform? It’s eating up all the food of the previous transitional form causing it to starve to death?
Simple version: will you make more money on an account paying 0% compound interest or an account paying 1% compound interest?
The beneficial mutation is the 1% account; the unmutated original is the 0% account.
rossum
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Of course there is. Just type in "evolution of the … " into Google.Scholar and you’ll find any amount of observations and the explanation which is currently thought to account for them. Then what? Oh, yes, you’ll come back and say “pure speculation” or even “there’s no proof”, or you’ll find some leading kidney evolutionist and extract a quote which in isolation seems to suggest that he doesn’t believe in evolution.There is no explanation for the creation of novel organs.
Pah!
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Strawman arguments are weak logic, and bad manners. Nobody said, ever, that you and your grandfather are “morphing into a completely different species.” Didn’t happen.
Do you think pretending someone said something dumb means that they said something dumb? Or do you do it because it’s easier to refute things you made up and put into people’s mouths than the actual science which is available all over the internet?
If you really want to conquer evolutionists, you’ll have to understand what they actually think, and remedy it with better ideas, better observations, and better science. I’ll begin holding my breath. . . now!
Do you think pretending someone said something dumb means that they said something dumb? Or do you do it because it’s easier to refute things you made up and put into people’s mouths than the actual science which is available all over the internet?
If you really want to conquer evolutionists, you’ll have to understand what they actually think, and remedy it with better ideas, better observations, and better science. I’ll begin holding my breath. . . now!
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
How long can a giraffes neck get?No. Your long running problem is an attempt to apply creationist methodology to evolution. Creationist methodology requires no observation, relies exclusively on arguments from authority, and is taken as fact. Evolutionist methodology depends exclusively on observation, from which a rational explanation is derived, which can be modified in the light of new observations.
B
buffalo
Guest
Intelligent design fits best. Methodological naturalism traps you into limited knowledge.Great! So does evolution! Two possible explanations for the observed evidence. Now we can discuss which one fits the evidence best! Oh, no, sorry, I forgot. Creationism doesn’t need any evidence…
B
buffalo
Guest
This is adaptation.No. You would understand some of the science a little better if you actually read some of it. There is no need for anything deleterious to happen to the original population and their descendants. The new form simply reproduces a little better, and so becomes gradually more numerous. Go back and read the mathematical model again, if you really want to understand. If you don’t, then don’t ask for clarification.
B
buffalo
Guest
If you really want to conquer intelligent design advocates, you’ll have to understand what they actually think, and remedy it with better ideas, better observations, and better science. I’ll begin holding my breath. . . now!If you really want to conquer evolutionists, you’ll have to understand what they actually think, and remedy it with better ideas, better observations, and better science. I’ll begin holding my breath. . . now!
E
edwest211
Guest
I agree. Intelligent Design is the better explanation.
T
Techno2000
Guest
you are a transitional stage yourself. What does it feel like!-Hugh_FareyNobody said, ever, that you and your grandfather are “morphing into a completely different species.” Didn’t happen.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Read again what you just quoted. Nobody said YOU ARE CHANGING.
You are a transitional form in the sense that you are more related to what came before you, and to what will come after you, than those two are two each other. Just like orange is closer to both red and yellow than they are to each other. Just like if you move your eyes along a spectrum, you will see red. . . then orange. . . then yellow.
At no point does red “turn into” yellow, because red is red and it is not yellow. But the fact is that as you move along that spectrum, red gives way to orange, orange gives way to yellow, and so on.
You are a transitional form in the sense that you are more related to what came before you, and to what will come after you, than those two are two each other. Just like orange is closer to both red and yellow than they are to each other. Just like if you move your eyes along a spectrum, you will see red. . . then orange. . . then yellow.
At no point does red “turn into” yellow, because red is red and it is not yellow. But the fact is that as you move along that spectrum, red gives way to orange, orange gives way to yellow, and so on.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
You’ve consistently misquoted and misrepresented not only the theory of evolution, but what I myself have said. Have I done this with ID? If so, go ahead and show me.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
That comes down to physics, as the area of a given cross-section of bone grows as x², and volume (and therefore weight) above that cross-section grows as x³. In other words, the pressure on each square inch of bone increases as the overall size of the animal increases. The same goes for ligaments and bones-- even though a large muscle might be able to generate huge force, too much force is likely to damage it, rendering the animal crippled.
Eventually, unless denser bone material evolves, the weight of the animal as it grows will put too much strain on its bones, and it will be unable to function. And even if denser bone material evolves, there will still be a limit based on the compressive strength of the material. I don’t know for sure, but I’d guess that the largest dinosaurs must have been right near that limit.
Eventually, unless denser bone material evolves, the weight of the animal as it grows will put too much strain on its bones, and it will be unable to function. And even if denser bone material evolves, there will still be a limit based on the compressive strength of the material. I don’t know for sure, but I’d guess that the largest dinosaurs must have been right near that limit.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Calling an untestable theory a “fact” is just Darwinist propaganda. Surely a fact is something that can be observed or verified by experiment.it’s scientific fact that birds descend from dinosaurs
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
This is a very silly and ignorant statement - the video camera wasn’t invented until the twentieth century. Only film cameras existed when dinosaurs roamed the earth.The creationists will want video evidence of a tyrannosaurus giving birth to a chicken.
T
Techno2000
Guest
There’s no such thing as transitional forms, if it was true we would be up to our necks in fossils and bones.Read again what you just quoted. Nobody said YOU ARE CHANGING.
You are a transitional form in the sense that you are more related to what came before you, and to what will come after you, than those two are two each other. Just like orange is closer to both red and yellow than they are to each other. Just like if you move your eyes along a spectrum, you will see red. . . then orange. . . then yellow.
At no point does red “turn into” yellow, because red is red and it is not yellow. But the fact is that as you move along that spectrum, red gives way to orange, orange gives way to yellow, and so on.
G
Glark
Guest
And I’d like to know how and why a dinosaur would evolve a bird respiratory system while keeping it’s reptilian respiratory system (the two systems are very different, so the former could not have evolved into the latter - therefore the bird system had to evolve alongside the reptilian system until it “took over”).
G
Glark
Guest
Why let rational thinking ruin a good story?Yeah… it’s kind of like rossum’s Theory that the birds and the dinosaurs were all partying together like it was 19,999,999 until the meteor took the dinosaurs out .
- Status
- Not open for further replies.