Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Joe_Armstrong, Apr 2, 2018.
A Rollie Fingers, fan, eh?
I believe all those things to be true. I've witnessed adaptation in moths and birds to the point of speciation. Those are still moths as moths and birds as birds though. I believe it COULD logically progress further then that, but I haven't witnessed it or seen any kind of fossil progression that would convince me it actually did.
I guess my problem isnt so much with the theory of evolution itself, but rather the whole common ancestor bit. The cambrian explosion makes this especially difficult for me. I see this as foundational to the theory as people describe it though.
In a very general sense I believe things adapt and can build up these adaptations to the point they change pretty drastically even. I don't believe the specific claims of this creature evolved into that creature from hundreds of millions of years ago.
I know most won't watch this as it's 2 hours long but I'll post it anyway. This is a documentary on Dover, PA. Creationists demanded that the school system teach creation alongside evolution in their school system. The school system said it wasn't science and the creationists took them to court over it. It's fascinating to watch what happened.
Even if you aren't a creationist, I see a lot of the same arguments as what happened in this court case. They attempt to find gaps in knowledge and since every little question can't be answered, they try to reject the entire theory as "just a theory" and shouldn't be taught since it's not complete.
In oleDirtyBast4rd's case, it seems like if you can't prove fish to tetraprod, evolution must be false. If a theory hangs on one tiny example, it's not a good theory. Thankfully, the theory of evolution by natural selection does not.
Moustache envy. I have real patchy facial hair.
Oh, man, that was a low blow... but spot on.
From the whale before it and that whale from the whale before it. That is more consistent then believing fish evolved to amphibians which left the water and evolved to reptiles which became warm blooded and mammals before going back to the water as whales.
You can't possibly know what I've read. I've embarrassed you several times over that claim. Just stop. Fish to tetrapod evolution remains poorly resolved. That is exactly what I've said over and over is the biggest source of my skepticism. These big claims that they arent able to support by their own admission. Now until you post something from that source that says differently, you're the one that has demonstrated a lack of reading
If you had read any of the information provided, you would not keep posting the same paragraph from the article you clearly did not read, in service of your position, which you can't even qualify or explain in any way.
Each of your posts on this issue prove you read NONE of it.
Projecting much? Can't seem to keep my mustache out of your mind. You have 3 comments on it in my sig and here you are talking about it in an evolution thread lol. Gotten to?
Projecting? I grow a nice mustache, but don't twirl it like some hipster weirdo, especially since I don't need to distract from my science fiction sized forehead.
That is not more consistent because we see that animals change over time. If we study the fossil record we can go back billions of years and get an approximation of the existing species during specific timeframes. If whales only came from whales that lived before them, then how do you explain the sudden appearance of whales only 50 million years ago?
So I request the same level of proof that you are demanding, to provide a better explanation for that, than natural selection.
Don't get hung up on names though. That's a big issue. What makes a snake a snake and a lizard a lizard? Is it simply the fact that snakes don't have legs? We humans are naming these things for identification purposes and just because we like to label things. Scientifically, they are both just reptiles of different species.
As for common ancestry, do you have a basic understanding of DNA?
Every computer program is made up of 0s and 1s. DNA is very similar except it is made up of the letters AGTC.
This is very simplistic but let's say I made a program and the code was "010101". If I told you to make the same program, your program would also be "010101".
Now for DNA, the AGTC code is found on every living thing. Not only that but when something reproduces, it passes that code on to its offspring. We can look at the entire human (and other animals) genome or "program", and compare it with other genomes/programs. We have the exact same code up to a point until we split off into our own species and then we different code.
It only makes sense that we have a common ancestor since we share the same original code in the same sequence. You combine this with the fossil evidence, geographic distribution and the fact that we can pass our "code" on to our offspring, common ancestry is about as rock solid as you can get.
Nah I actually think the theory minus the necessity for a common ancestor is pretty good. The concept itself I have no issue with. I dont like the idea of creationism being taught in schools extensively. I think it should be stated it is a very common alternative belief to evolution, but I dont think it should be any more detailed then that.
So I posted a paragraph with a commentary about it yet I've read NONE of it again? Lol you're really fumbling over your words bud
Not going to read the rest of the article for you, homie, much less the extensive list of other articles you asked for, and were provided. You're being dishonest.
ill call that progress on your part since this thread started.
You're either saying germs don't experience natural selection or evolve OR that they do but knowledge of this has had no positive impact on society or medicine.
Both are retarded, take your pick. Realizing this about baceteria amd viruses literally saved countless lives.
First of all I dont believe the fossil record is capable of telling us when things began to exist. I reject the idea whales are only 50 million years old for the reasons already stated.
The various species of lunged fish... why are they not in transition to whales? That would be a MUCH shorter evolutionary chain and would make much more sense then going to land and then back to the water
That's basically making a concession to appease radical Christians.