Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Joe_Armstrong, Apr 2, 2018.
I disagree with this being a better question.
It's artificial selection. it works on the exact same principle as natural selection though. Nature does the same thing as humans would do just with the focus on surviving, reproduction and adaptation. We also do this with food.
But yeah, if humans disappeared and you put something like a chihuahua in the wild, it's only going to be able to mate and reproduce with other small dogs due to sheer size alone. Over time (could be 100s or 1000s of years), they would become their own species and if they somehow mated with a larger dog, they wouldn't be able to reproduce. All of that is predictable and confirmable in the theory.
I'd imagine something like a chihuahua and toy dogs probably wouldn't have much survivability though and would be prey to bigger animals. Unless they evolved to become ground dwellers and good at hiding, they probably wouldn't last many generations on their own. Who knows what natural selection would do for them.
I wonder why evolution deniers don't deny other theories like thermodynamics or the law of motion?
I mentioned it more as an aside than to disagree with what you guys were saying. The article I read about the terriers stated even pure breed pups were too large to be born naturally. So for that breed there would be no possible future in the wild.
Something else to consider when thinking in geologic timescales, is that the atmosphere was inhospitable to most life billions of years ago, before the Great Oxygenation Event that generated the ready fuel source modern species exploit. So we can deduce that new species do appear through time.
Those sciences don't conflict with their religious beliefs.
"I don't think most people that claim the whole theory as 100% true even understand some of the implications.
This means you are the direct descendant of a fish
This means your great grandfather's DNA is closer to that of a fish then your's
This means whales evolved from the ocean to the land and then back to the ocean while changing blood types from cold to warm, and even changing reproduction type
Some people need to come to grips with what they actually believe instead of mocking others. We all believe some gnarly things, but until you actually question what you believe, you will never understand it"
Just preparing you... if you have time you should read some of his earlier posts.
Which was I wrong about? Do evolutionary biologists not claim we are direct descendants of fish?
Do whales not go through the evolution that I said they did?
LOL, I think you still have the questions from my last post unanswered.
And? You started talking about me here and I responded. Was I wrong about what evolutionary biologists claim?
Let's do this chronologically, my questions first please.
Lmfao... I didnt think so. It was a yes or no question ffs
Not going to let you avoid those questions like you've been doing, so please proceed.
I already said I was taking a break from the thread for a few days. I've been following along very casually since saying that. You should be able to answer a yes or no question regarding your "quotes" of me
Nah, I'll wait till you've answered first, thanks.
You're gonna be waiting a while again. I dont have any intention to discuss things with people who seem to purposefully misunderstand me
If you're tapping out I understand, that should prove to everyone that you don't understand the concepts and data well enough to have conversation on this.
Not quite. It isn't whales evolving onto land and back into the sea again. We don't decend from fish we have a common ancestor.
What is the first fish? I thought there wasn't full agreement about that since it's kind of arbitrary. Still true we have a common ancestor obv, but I thought we descended from something that could reasonably be called a fish.
Nah whales start as fish and then evolved into amphibians the reptiles then land mammals then sea mammals.
Biologists claim we did descend from fish. What do you think ancestor means in this case?
From what I've read, they are not a single clade so the evolution of fish was not a discrete lineal descent. There were multiple lineages of animals that converged at different times to form what we call fish today.
Separate names with a comma.