Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bradskii said:
I suppose one could speculate that’s some plants adapted better to more sunlight or less sunlight, richer or poorer soil,but that would be too simplified to explain all the diversity of all the fruit,flower and vegetable plants that we have today.
Click to expand...
I suppose one could speculate that’s some plants adapted better to more sunlight or less sunlight, richer or poorer soil,but that would be too simplified to explain all the diversity of all the fruit,flower and vegetable plants that we have today.

Lol, you forgot to read this part. 😄

PS I’m going to do a poll in the future of so many “Likes” if I get a certain number (5 or more ) I will continue on to part 4.2…whatever you do …don’t hit the like button !
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Bradskii:
I suppose one could speculate that’s some plants adapted better to more sunlight or less sunlight, richer or poorer soil,but that would be too simplified to explain all the diversity of all the fruit,flower and vegetable plants that we have today.
Click to expand...
I suppose one could speculate that’s some plants adapted better to more sunlight or less sunlight, richer or poorer soil,but that would be too simplified to explain all the diversity of all the fruit,flower and vegetable plants that we have today.

Lol, you forgot to read this part. 😄

PS I’m going to do a poll in the future of so many “Likes” if I get a certain number (5 or more ) I will continue on to part 4.2…whatever you do …don’t hit the like button !
Click to expand...
Nah. We’re done. All I wanted was an admission that things evolve. I’m not really interested in the extent to which you think it might happen. That’s just a matter of degree (cue statements about birds are still birds whether they are finchs or albatrosses or penguins or kiwis or emus).

My work here is done.
 
Bradskii said:
Nah. We’re done. All I wanted was an admission that things evolve. I’m not really interested in the extent to which you think it might happen. That’s just a matter of degree (cue statements about birds are still birds whether they are finchs or albatrosses or penguins or kiwis or emus).

My work here is done.
Click to expand...
Does evolution have any limits?
 
Hugh_Farey said:
As long as we can say that every baby has (at least one) mother, then the ancestry of all living things still leads inexorably towards LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, from which we all descended.
Click to expand...
That is a huge assumption for which there is no proof possible. Of course God’s will is that life be fruitful and multiply. As it does so, expressing His infinite creativity, it reveals the Beauty that He is. While God maintains creation, bringing every moment, every place and everything into existence, the purpose behind it has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Had all this wonder come about through evolutionary processes, it would have stopped with the creation of mankind in one first person, Adam. There is no common ancestor to life, although it does rest on a common ontological framework created by God.
 
buffalo said:
Does evolution have any limits?
Click to expand...
I was about to say it is limited to organic matter, but people talk about the evolution of the iPhone or of galaxies, so it’s hard to say what the limits are.

Does futility have any limits?
 
We have a guy here so taken with evolution he actually denied it has any limits. Astonishing…
 
Well, its limits are astonishing. Living things thrive in almost every hostile environment on the planet.

Of course you and the No-Evo Squad say that God accomplished this by other means.

What other science lessons are contained in the Bible? Don’t answer. It’s a rhetorical question. Just like the title of this thread. Techno2000 asked the question 4.1 times so far, and a thousand questions more, without any intention of dialog. Futility.

Does futility have any limits?
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Nah. We’re done. All I wanted was an admission that things evolve. I’m not really interested in the extent to which you think it might happen. That’s just a matter of degree (cue statements about birds are still birds whether they are finchs or albatrosses or penguins or kiwis or emus).

My work here is done.
Click to expand...
Does evolution have any limits?
Click to expand...
I’m done. The OP accepts evolution. Thank you and goodnight.
 
Lenski’s experiment has been running for years. That puts those early generations in the past.

rossum
 
And Primates remain Primates. That is exactly what common descent says. That is why we can call birds dinosaurs. That is why we can call ourselves mammals.

If different ‘kinds’ were created separately then we couldn’t do that. If all life on earth is related by common descent then we can.

rossum
 
rossum said:
And Primates remain Primates. That is exactly what common descent says.
Click to expand...
You know the difference between UCD and CD. Common descent is obvious from the different kinds at creation. UCD is not. The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within,
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
We have a guy here so taken with evolution he actually denied it has any limits. Astonishing…
Click to expand...
I’m that guy, folks! You wanna make a dinosaur fly? No problem! You wanna make a mouth like a spoon, or hands like spades, or a shiny blue ass? Just a few million years.

Is this astonishing, incredible, or absurd? You might think so. But if you had a shred of humanity in you, you might wonder 4 000 000 000 people think that’s exactly what happened.
 
He didn’t have to “haul” them, those generations were already in the lab.

rossum
 
As you point out, variation within kinds is a feature of both common descent and of creationism. It does not have to be a feature of Intelligent Design; a designer could design a living Pegasus.

Abrupt appearance is to be expected over most of the planet. Humans evolved in Africa; everywhere else their appearance was abrupt. One day there were no humans in Australia, the next day the canoe landed and there were humans in Australia.

The same for whales. Only in a part of modern Pakistan is the gradual appearance of whales obvious. Over the rest of the world their appearance was sudden.

To quote Darwin:
But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.
  • Origin, 6th Ed. Chapter Four
Click to expand...
Abrupt appearance is not the problem for evolution that you try to make it seem. Better to concentrate on finding a Precambrian rabbit fossil or a living Pegasus. Both of those would be very problematic for evolution.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top