See Stoneking et al. (2018) Alu Insertion Polymorphisms and Human Evolution: Evidence for a Larger Population Size in Africa.That’s fine. But you have not advanced your argument yet that science evidences that human being evolved from non-human beings. Please stop deflecting and answer the question: What evidence?
The abstract indicates nothing about humans evolving from non-humans. As you think this article supports your claim, kindly cite the evidence.See Stoneking et al. (2018) Alu Insertion Polymorphisms and Human Evolution: Evidence for a Larger Population Size in Africa .
Ditto this article.
Which means you have nothing to offer as evidence. Yours is an act of faith, not science.I get 4,600,000 hits on Google Scholar for “human evolution”. The rest you can find for yourself.
Which means you have no idea what 4,600,000 means.Which means you have nothing to offer as evidence.
And another religious person trying to criticise science by making it appear to be a religion. You do realise that, in effect, you are saying that religion is inferior to science with this comparison?Yours is an act of faith, not science.
Once again you fail to grasp the circular argument you are making. What makes them different? Loss of function once had.Thank you for proving my point that you have no real argument against macro-evolution, specifically against the evolution of Chrysopa downesi from C. carnea .
After all this time arguing against macro-evolution, surely you have something better than that. As o_mlly pointed out, it is hardly the first time I have posted a link to the Tauber and Tauber paper.
Yours is “blind faith” without evidence.And another religious person trying to criticise science by making it appear to be a religion. You do realise that, in effect, you are saying that religion is inferior to science with this comparison?
“Science is superior to religion so since evolution is “faith” is must be inferior to science.”
I am surprised by how many religious people use this argument and place science above religion.
Yes, morphology is being passed by. I have made this point over and over.I thought this was made perfectly clear countless times before.
I would add that science is not only on the wrong track, but has erred in carving up humanity based on gross morphological differences. Trying to think clearly, the reality of a species boils down to its being the gene pool of organisms which can produce offspring. Clearly, since we carry the DNA of these long ago people, they should be classified as human in scientific terms. But, the definition of species seems to be as slippery as an Anguilla rostrata , anything to support the theory that classifies even genetic abnormalities such as Procambarus virginalis as a separate species.
After all these changes in bacteria what have they become? Still bacteria.But they are not genetic abnormalities once they reproduce and become the statistical norm. By very definition their ability to do so creates different and varied genomes ovee generations. They great thing about bacteria is they reproduce with such speed, so we can see the allele changes rapidly.
I’ve just jumped into this thread and really surprised by some arguments.
And also a gain in function that they didn’t have before. C. downesi has lost the old function of breeding with C. chrysopa and has gained the new function of breeding with C. downsei.Once again you fail to grasp the circular argument you are making. What makes them different? Loss of function once had.
And why they cannot ever let the divine foot in the door. This is quite a limited view of the universe. Schools are only allowed to teach our children “partial” truths. And we are OK with it. Sad.Evolution deals only with the material components of living things.
Bye, Bye macro-evolution. Oh, I forgot it is a blind faith position.In science you need evidence, not opinion if you are going to have any impact.
Not this again.I get 4,600,000 hits on Google Scholar for “human evolution”. The rest you can find for yourself.
I have posted evidence and we are discussing is on this thread.Yours is “blind faith” without evidence.
It is an example of variation within, aka adaptation. aka micro-evolution.Either way, this example is an example of the natural evolution of species, and so confirms the title of this thread.
After all these changes in eukaryotes what have they become? Still eukaryotes.After all these changes in bacteria what have they become? Still bacteria.
The issue is the definition of species. Genetic differentiation is showing our previous classification system to be weak and incomplete.I have posted evidence and we are discussing is on this thread.
Please post evidence of your deity (or any deity) creating a new species. We are discussing how species emerge, and so far only one side has any evidence to support it’s position: the evolution side.
Where is your evidence? Catholicism does not require disbelief in the evolution of species, so Catholicism cannot help you there. You need specific (!) evidence of the non-evolutionary origin of any species, except the very first.
Of course we are. We have to be for macro-evolution. lolYou do realise that humans are eukaryotes, don’t you? Our cells have nuclei and mitochondria; We are eukaryotes, and our ancestors were eukaryotes all the way back to a single-cell eukaryote ancestor.
False. They are separate species and cannot interbreed. Why do you think that false statements will convince anyone with even a passing knowledge of biology?It is an example of variation within, aka adaptation. aka micro-evolution.