So, please enlighten me on how the nostrils moved from the front of the snout to the top of the head.Techno2000:
Your understanding of evolution is faulty. I suggest that you learn more about the subject to resolve the problem.
rossum
Even today the shape and size of the beaks of many birds is changing due to different feeding habits, e.g. in the UK the constant feeding of wild birds by people is changing the beaks so evolution doesn’t have to take a long time.
And at the same time, in every hospital in the world, unseen organisms are adapting, evolving and growing resistant to antibiotics.Techno2000:
Even today the shape and size of the beaks of many birds is changing due to different feeding habits, e.g. in the UK the constant feeding of wild birds by people is changing the beaks so evolution doesn’t have to take a long time.
In the case of whales I assume it did take a long time.
aka adaptation.
You obviously didn’t read all my bacteria posts. Or you outright ignored them.
Wow… Talk about condescending and rude.
Nobody is obligated to believe in Evolution. It’s a Theory, not Dogma.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Well,… you see… It went like…
I’ll get back to you on that.
Huh?HarryStotle:
I highlight these words because these words, or words to the same effect, are at the heart of every anti-evolution arguement I have ever seen…
I posit that all such arguements are unscientific. More than that, they are not logical. This is not to say that the person making the argument is any less knowledgeable than others in the field. It is an illogical arguement even if no one sees or knows the missing data.
, much less an illogical one.
I suppose gravity is “self-evident to any sane and observant person who can absorb common sense scientific evidence,” but are the theories surrounding gravity, that try to explain how it works, also as “self-evident” to anyone who is not insane?
The same way that the eyes of a flounder migrate from two sides of its head to one side as it grows from larval to juvenile stage.rossum:
So, please enlighten me on how the nostrils moved from the front of the snout to the top of the head.Techno2000:
Your understanding of evolution is faulty. I suggest that you learn more about the subject to resolve the problem.
rossum
Right, flounders,frogs,butterflies takes weeks…but other things take millions of years.Techno2000:
The same way that the eyes of a flounder migrate from two sides of its head to one side as it grows from larval to juvenile stage.rossum:
So, please enlighten me on how the nostrils moved from the front of the snout to the top of the head.Techno2000:
Your understanding of evolution is faulty. I suggest that you learn more about the subject to resolve the problem.
rossum
If eyes can do it, so can nostrils!
It’s a well known fact of nature – the magic of metamorphosis – i.e., evolution in fast motion. What can take days or weeks or months surely can take millions of years.
The question of how, however, remains just a bit of a mystery – just like evolution.
Yup, we sees it happenin in fronts of our eyes but we jus don’t know how. Jus don’t ask questions – they’s bad arguements. Hungh.
Paste this into Google:
You did, and I suggested that the composition of the atmosphere was a significant factor.
Indeed. The conditions that life has evolved to tolerate are very different from the conditions in which it originally appeared. However, it is not impossible that in some parts of the world, conditions similar to those still occur, nor that life in its earliest form is not still being formed.
Yes it is, if the question is part of an argument. If, as you say, your inquiry of me was merely a search for information, then it wasn’t an argument at all, logical or not. I hope I answered it appropriately. However, I understand leafbyniggle’s confusion. You did not, in fact, ask a question. You began with: "“The conditions were only perfect the first time and at no time since, which is odd because the conditions at the time were not very hospitable for life, but have been much better since.” This is not an innocent question but a direct statement of a view contrary to general scientific acceptance. It sounds like the beginning of an argument. It was followed by: “So you’d think life ought to be spontaneously arising much more frequently when the conditions are more hospitable than when they are not, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.” This is fairly conventional persuasion (You’d think… it doesn’t appear… ), and you follow it with an attempt to express an opposing point of view, and only then, "it is difficult to see… ". In many circumstances, your post could well be understood as an argument, of sorts, so I think leafbyniggle’s interpretation should be forgiven.
I’m so sorry that your English is so unintelligible to me as to make it difficult to respond. My fault, I dare say. Perhaps if I was younger it would make more sense. The video you reference is easier to understand, and simply incorrect in almost everything it says. Anybody can stand up and make a series of statements, but they do not become true merely by being made. No evolutionist video would ever do such a thing. Evolution does not consist of a series of statements; it consists of the presentation of observations, from which conclusions are clearly drawn. Some people do not accept the conclusions, which is fair enough, but their counterarguments should consist of explanations why they think the conclusions are unjustified, not simply bald announcements of disagreement.