Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another thing that puzzles me is that if evolution is true, why so many variations of only the human species? Take a single body part like the human nose and notice just how many different sizes and shapes of noses are out there. I don't see nearly that type of variety in any other animal.
You really need to get out more. And/or take a basic biology course (see below for lesson #1).
Dogs are actually a good species for you to study because, apart from their incredible diversity (noses?? I'll give you noses!!).... they demonstrate evolution in a very compressed time of a few hundred years. Yes, it was more artificial selection (aided by us), rather than natural selection as occurred in humans over a much longer time. But dogs remain a single species, with more variety than you will ever see in our own species.
You really need to get out more. And/or take a basic biology course (see below for lesson #1).
Dogs are actually a good species for you to study because, apart from their incredible diversity (noses?? I'll give you noses!!).... they demonstrate evolution in a very compressed time of a few hundred years. Yes, it was more artificial selection (aided by us), rather than natural selection as occurred in humans over a much longer time. But dogs remain a single species, with more variety than you will ever see in our own species.
They are still dogs. They didn't evolve into chickens.
You are truly the master of the non-sequitur. So many posts connect the dots in new and novel (and inaccurate) ways.
Nothing I said (or more to the point, evolutionary science has said) suggests that dogs evolved into chickens. You may want to join Jeff in Biology 101?
They are still dogs. They didn't evolve into chickens.
Close to the 'Cats from dogs' fallacious apologetic. Nobody says that chickens were on the evolutionary line to dogs. It displays your total misunderstanding of evolution - theory. Mammals had already evolved before dinosaurs had evolved a line to birds. But (as though you had been on Mars all the time I was arguing with Omoeba...I mean Omega...) if you want hard evidence of a land critter evolving into a sea -creature, look at whale evolution.
It is quite staggering how Creationists presume to debunk evolution -theory when they don't understand the first thing about it. And in fact they don't want to. If you explain it to them, they pop up a month later, talking the same 'cats from dogs' tripe. It's not just the posters here - Creationist spokesbods are just as ignorant. That's why they made such a big deal about mules and donkeys, and I failed to understand why. They say (I won't say 'believe' because I doubt that they really do) that such interbreeding produces infertile sub-species, so evolution can't work.
But evolution -theory is nothing to do with species interbreeding; it is all to do with evolutionary change within a species. Which Creationism actually accepts - they just deny that it can change so much that the creature becomes so different that you have to give it a different species -name.
The cetan sequence is hard evidence that this did happen in the past. One proven example proves them all.
And now I'm going out to buy a six -pack of cider, so there.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-27-2018 at 08:54 AM..
You are truly the master of the non-sequitur. So many posts connect the dots in new and novel (and inaccurate) ways.
Nothing I said (or more to the point, evolutionary science has said) suggests that dogs evolved into chickens. You may want to join Jeff in Biology 101?
Close to the 'Cats from dogs' fallacious apologetic. Nobody says that chickens were on the evolutionary line to dogs. It displays your total misunderstanding of evolution - theory. Mammals had already evolved before dinosaurs had evolved a line to birds. But (as though you had been on Mars all the time I was arguing with Omoeba...I mean Omega...) if you want hard evidence of a land critter evolving into a sea -creature, look at whale evolution.
It is quite staggering how Creationists presume to debunk evolution -theory when they don't understand the first thing about it. And in fact they don't want to. If you explain it to them, they pop up a month later, talking the same 'cats from dogs' tripe. It's not just the posters here - Creationist spokesbods are just as ignorant. That's why they made such a big deal about mules and donkeys, and I failed to understand why. They say (I won't say 'believe' because I doubt that they really do) that such interbreeding produces infertile sub-species, so evolution can't work.
But evolution -theory is nothing to do with species interbreeding; it is all to do with evolutionary change within a species. Which Creationism actually accepts - they just deny that it can change so much that the creature becomes so different that you have to give it a different species -name.
The cetan sequence is hard evidence that this did happen in the past. One proven example proves them all.
And now I'm going out to buy a six -pack of cider, so there.
I'm saying that yes--we see natural selection, selective breeding, and HUGE variance in a species. Yes--we all know that.
But I'm also saying that we don't see dogs grow feathers, or beaks. They don't vary so much in their basic structure as to create an entirely new type of animal.
Darwin's finches were a classic example. When the food supply became abundant again? The beaks got shorter again. They were longer to be able to reach the seeds that fell in cracks, and the ones that couldn't reach food died. But they didn't grow an extra claw to be able to reach down into the rocks. We see animals that can't survive die....ones that do survive live and pass their traits on.
You really need to get out more. And/or take a basic biology course (see below for lesson #1).
Dogs are actually a good species for you to study because, apart from their incredible diversity (noses?? I'll give you noses!!).... they demonstrate evolution in a very compressed time of a few hundred years. Yes, it was more artificial selection (aided by us), rather than natural selection as occurred in humans over a much longer time. But dogs remain a single species, with more variety than you will ever see in our own species.
So what? I can go down to the pet store and pick up a Jack Russell terrier and know exactly how it will look including nose and a good idea of the kind of personality that I'm getting. Unless you are claiming that we have various breeds or sub-groups of humans that have identical traits then you have no comparison here.
So what? I can go down to the pet store and pick up a Jack Russell terrier and know exactly how it will look including nose and a good idea of the kind of personality that I'm getting. Unless you are claiming that we have various breeds or sub-groups of humans that have identical traits then you have no comparison here.
Nonsense. You can get an idea of the kind of looks you'll be getting just as if you got on a Philiippines dating site looking forsome company. But that wouldn't tell you the personality you were were getting, no more than a breed of dog would guarantee the personality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeelaMonster
You are truly the master of the non-sequitur. So many posts connect the dots in new and novel (and inaccurate) ways.
Nothing I said (or more to the point, evolutionary science has said) suggests that dogs evolved into chickens. You may want to join Jeff in Biology 101?
What would be the point if they have their eyes screwed shut and fingers jammed in their ears?
Oh - and with mouth wide open yelling "you can't prove that Life came from non -life", "Darwin couldn't explain how the eye evolved". "What about the Cambrian explosion?" "Lucy is just a chimp". "Punctured equilibrium? He Ha Evolution is in disarray." "What about Piltdown man?" "Archaeopteryx feathers were faked. It's just a lizard...(what?...say again? Damn)..Archaeopteryx is not a lizard, it's a true bird". "What about Living fossils?" and good old "When I see a dog give birth to a cat, I'll believe in evolution."
But if that was arranged, it would switch to: 'You may have got a dog to give birth to a cat in the laboratory, but that doesn't mean that was what actually happened!".
You can't instruct people who are in denial.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-27-2018 at 10:14 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
