T
Techno2000
Guest
But,none of that has anything to do with them morphing into a new species, so what’s the point?
Last edited:
- Status
K
Kei
Guest
I believe day agers would say that the text makes a movement of context to the surface of the Earth, and that the sun appearing would be a subjective statement along with everything after the move. So, for instance, the sun appearing would be to shine through beyond the clouds of gas on the early earth.
I personally believe in 6 literal 24 hour periods that vary in time of billions of years.
I personally believe in 6 literal 24 hour periods that vary in time of billions of years.
T
Techno2000
Guest
But, that wasn’t caused by it morphing into a new species.
U
Usagi
Guest
You asked if any species are currently failing to reproduce. You said nothing about “morphing.” Your question was answered.
Do you continue to deny that the frequency of a trait in a population can change based on whether it promotes increased reproductive success?
Do you continue to deny that the frequency of a trait in a population can change based on whether it promotes increased reproductive success?
U
Usagi
Guest
I told you when I entered this conversation, you don’t have to believe that natural selection gives rise to new species. We’re still on the question of whether you even understand how it’s supposed to work.
Much as we Christians often say to the more annoying internet atheists, if you’re going to argue against something, at least argue against the actual thing and not your misunderstanding of the thing.
Much as we Christians often say to the more annoying internet atheists, if you’re going to argue against something, at least argue against the actual thing and not your misunderstanding of the thing.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Sorry, I should have clarified, under your scenario what species of plant or animal is not reproducing.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Evolution doesn’t work like this ?
U
Usagi
Guest
In my illustration of a transitional form being a complete and successful organism for its time but still being outcompeted later? That’s the only example of mine that I can find.
First population A and later population B fail to be as reproductively successful as their eventual successors. They don’t all stop having babies at once (I don’t know where you got the “their reproductive systems shut down” idea), but over the generations the proportion of B-trait and C-trait individuals increases until basically no one is left to pass on the A trait. Later the same happens with the B trait because the C trait promotes survival and reproductive success even better.
First population A and later population B fail to be as reproductively successful as their eventual successors. They don’t all stop having babies at once (I don’t know where you got the “their reproductive systems shut down” idea), but over the generations the proportion of B-trait and C-trait individuals increases until basically no one is left to pass on the A trait. Later the same happens with the B trait because the C trait promotes survival and reproductive success even better.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Thank you for being honest about that.
U
Usagi
Guest
Does the picture have accompanying text that actually describes what is supposed to be going on there? I cannot answer your question unless I know what the picture is supposed to be teaching.
U
Usagi
Guest
Honest about what? I meant that literally I did not know what “my situation” was that you were referring to, but thought it might be that example. I then replied to your question based on that example. What do you think I said?
T
Techno2000
Guest
The evolution of the whale.
R
Richca
Guest
At least some species of bees if not all have stingers that when an individual bee uses the stinger either in defense of itself, or for other bees in a colony of bees, or the queen mother bee, the bee dies. According to Darwinism, novel organs and functions evolve from organisms that are useful for survival and survival of the fittest. If this is the case, what is the benefit of the evolution of stingers in bees that if they use them they die?
Secondly, how does Darwinism explain the phenomenon that ‘individual bees’ will instinctively sacrifice their own lives for the benefit of other bees in a colony and the queen mother bee?
T
Techno2000
Guest
In my illustration of a transitional form being a complete and successful organism for its time but still being outcompeted later? That’s the only example of mine that I can find.
That you couldn’t find a real life example ?
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
T-Rexes, dodos and West African black rhinoceros. Also ligers and mules. Wait. . . I think we can see some kind of pattern here. . .
Last edited:
U
Usagi
Guest
I meant that was the only example of anything I had provided in the thread.
What would you actually accept as an example of a real-life transitional form? In the past you have rejected suggestions from others because they weren’t literally half-and-half monsters. My example was intended to show how you could have three populations, one of them transitional between the other two, with all three actually being viable organisms and the “transitional” status only being obvious to humans looking at all three in retrospect.
What would you actually accept as an example of a real-life transitional form? In the past you have rejected suggestions from others because they weren’t literally half-and-half monsters. My example was intended to show how you could have three populations, one of them transitional between the other two, with all three actually being viable organisms and the “transitional” status only being obvious to humans looking at all three in retrospect.
U
Usagi
Guest
Yes, I can read the caption. Is there a description of what each of those animals was, when it lived, and so forth? Does the textbook or workbook or whatever mean to teach evolution by just having children look at that picture with no explanation?
Heck, if all we have is the picture, let’s try this: You said “This isn’t how evolution works?” and posted that picture. What does that picture say to you? How would you explain the working of evolution based on your understanding of that picture?
Heck, if all we have is the picture, let’s try this: You said “This isn’t how evolution works?” and posted that picture. What does that picture say to you? How would you explain the working of evolution based on your understanding of that picture?
T
Techno2000
Guest
And we know that evolution works for the good of those who love evolution , who have been called according to evolution’s purpose.rossum:
At least some species of bees if not all have stingers that when an individual bee uses the stinger either in defense of itself, or for other bees in a colony of bees, or the queen mother bee, the bee dies. According to Darwinism, novel organs and functions evolve from organisms that are useful for survival and survival of the fittest. If this is the case, what is the benefit of the evolution of stingers in bees that if they use them they die?
Secondly, how does Darwinism explain the phenomenon that ‘individual bees’ will instinctively sacrifice their own lives for the benefit of other bees in a colony and the queen mother bee?
Evolution 8:28
E
edwest211
Guest
It is highly speculative. Did it happen this way? Unknown. We should have a lot more bones over a million year period.
U
Usagi
Guest
IIRC, the bees with the stingers don’t actually participate in the ordinary reproduction of their kind. So their individual survival is irrelevant, as long as the presence of stinging worker bees allows the genes of that sort of bee to be passed on more successfully than without them.
- Status