P
PickyPicky
Guest
How many more would you say, roughly? And when do you think they appeared?
Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Maybe you will answer - no one else will
So, once again, is genetics better than homology? Yes or no.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
How in the world is this a proper response to a question?
O
o_mlly
Guest
The evolution advocates have, it seems to me, morphed this thread from the OP’s request to defend their speculations on speciation with science facts, i.e., observations …
It seems the best argument for the modern version of Darwin’s origin of species remains non-scientific. Rossum’s Rule applies.
… to the nonsensical demands that others, 1) defend the science of Genesis, 2) defend an alternate speculation on speciation. Genesis is not a science claim and another speculation on speciation is well, just another speculation on speciation.
It seems the best argument for the modern version of Darwin’s origin of species remains non-scientific. Rossum’s Rule applies.
R
rossum
Guest
It does. We have the evidence: Tauber and Tauber (1977) is just one examples. You might want to look up the many studies on speciation in Cichlid fish as well. For example: Barluenga et al. (2006)
Science has the evidence. I await the evidence to support your alternative.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
I’m sorry, but that looks to me to be a nonsensical question. I thought homology (in biology) was about genetic similarity. But I’m no scientist.
Which is why I’m keen to hear your answer to my questions. How many archetypes were there, and when did they appear?
O
o_mlly
Guest
Please post the relevant text from your citations that support the existence of empirical evidence of speciation.o_mlly:
It does. We have the evidence: Tauber and Tauber (1977) is just one examples. You might want to look up the many studies on speciation in Cichlid fish as well. For example: Barluenga et al. (2006)
Science has the evidence. I await the evidence to support your alternative.
O
o_mlly
Guest
My alternative is, as PattyIt put it in another thread, “We just don’t know.”
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
The Lake Apoyo population of the Midas cichlid and the Arrow cichlid form a monophyletic assemblage (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Fig. 3); they are reproductively completely isolated as shown by mate-choice experiments and the analyses of three sets of molecular markers (Table 1); they are sympatrically distributed, no genetic structuring was detected in A. citrinellus and A. zaliosus, and even individuals from opposite sides of the crater lake show no sign of differentiation (Supplementary Table 4, Supplementary Fig. 4). The recent volcanic origin of Lake Apoyo, its small size, its degree of isolation, the homogeneous habitat and the sympatric occurrence of both species throughout the lake, as well as the absence of genetic structure in each of the two species rule out the possibility of (micro-) allopatric or parapatric differentiation.
This seems to be what you were looking for.
This seems to be what you were looking for.
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
The birds were flying in the sky elsewhere while the the Cambrian fossils were being formed by rapid sedimentation. The birds weren’t fossilized there and then. If there hadn’t been rapid sedimentation, the Cambrian life forms would have rotted rather than being preserved. Cambrian rock layers do not show all creatures on the earth at the time. They show only the ones being buried by sediment.
The Cambrian explosion fossils don’t show the entire biosphere. They show only specific underwater biomes and habitats.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Nope. I’m looking for an empirical observation, not an historical speculation, of a speciation event.
R
rossum
Guest
Captain Prudeman has answered your question. If you found it difficult to understand the Barlengua paper – it does use the relevant technical terms – then you need to learn more biology before you continue in this discussion. This is science, and you are expected to know the basics.
You might want to start by learning the difference between sympatric speciation (the case here) and allopatric speciation.
R
rossum
Guest
Penguins? Ostriches? There are many species of flightless birds.
R
rossum
Guest
Then the birth of Jesus is a “historical speculation”. None of the four Gospel writers were present at His birth and we have no eye witness accounts. They saw the adult man and speculated that He had been born.
Hyper-scepticism will not get you very far. Unless you have personally seen the dollar bill in your hand being printed at the US Mint then you cannot assume it is not a forgery.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Not at all, I can read. What you apparently find difficult to understand is the difference between empirical and historical science. The former can with facility use the declarative mode for its claims, the latter only the subjunctive.
So what if it is? What does the birth of Jesus have to do with the Theory of Evolution? As I posted earlier, the evo advocate, coming up empty on hard evidence for speciation, try to turn this thread into a Bible debate.
R
rossum
Guest
Then it puts the birth of Jesus in the same scientific category as evolution. Do you accept that Jesus was born? Then, given the same indirect evidence, you should accept the evolution of species.
F
Freddy
Guest
I can’t think of anything to say about a comment like that. But surely one would have to think that it was really time to leave a thread that contains it.rossum:
The birds were flying in the sky elsewhere while the the Cambrian fossils were being formed…
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Giant centipedes coexisted with T-Rex, mammoths with Allosaurus, whales with mosasaurs, and giant saber-toothed cats with velociraptors. Hardy, resilient, but weak mammals coexisted with the largest reptilian predators in Earth’s history. Gargantuan arthropods somehow lived in an environment that was simultaneously the most oxygen dense time in history and relatively low in atmospheric oxygen. Worldwide peat bogs and swamps were replaced by deserts and plains in matters of weeks, days, or hours, while also allowing enough time to grow so many trees that humans have enough oil and coal to last several lifetimes. Continents just formed the way they look today randomly, but manage to fit together nearly perfectly if the continental drift is reversed. Prehistoric shorelines never existed, those very clearly sea-dwelling animals just happened to end up next to shoreline and land animals by chance. Antarctica both flourished with life and was a frozen, barren waste.
This is what your worldview entails. All these things. . . . The truth is that it’s simply impossible for life to have been so diverse in life within even hundreds of thousands of years.
This is what your worldview entails. All these things. . . . The truth is that it’s simply impossible for life to have been so diverse in life within even hundreds of thousands of years.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
02:48 - “Why do you believe the resurrection of Jesus?” 09:56 - Fine tuning: the Information for Life and the Fabric of the Universe 15:46 - Thought experiment: When a living thing dies, what is lost, and how to rebuild? 20:09 - What is life and how did it get here: Requirements and laboratory interventions 25:08 - Sustaining life: Low entropy, high thermal energy, engines, and information 32:04 - The Positive Case for Intelligent Design
R
rossum
Guest
Still no answers to the questions we have asked about your proposed archetypes. How many archetypes were there and when did they appear?
I am beginning to get the impression that you are not very keen on answering questions about your proposals.
I am beginning to get the impression that you are not very keen on answering questions about your proposals.
- Status