Reply With Quote
That's already been worked out. There was a common ancestor, then through random mutations it turned into goats, sheeps, cows, camels, and whales.
Have you looked for that information yourself?
I predict a no answer.
That's already been worked out. There was a common ancestor, then through random mutations it turned into goats, sheeps, cows, camels, and whales.
That's already been worked out. There was a common ancestor, then through random mutations it turned into goats, sheeps, cows, camels, and whales.
So here's this little critter that looks something similiar to a mouse. So why is there ...need...for a change? It lives in a jungle, has plenty to eat, it has a good life. So after time for no reason at all it just starts changing into something else......why?
Because Jesus.
Seriously, you need to explain why Jesus made everything change, because the evidence shows the changes happened.
Ok who can show me a picture/drawing of what a chicken looked like 10,000 years ago?
All you are doing here is flaunting your ignorance.
We already know you don't know about anything, listbot.
Now whine about me in an attempt to distract from your ignorance.
did you observe your mother's birth?
Here's a 10,000 year old painting of a cat and some the cat caught.
Jesus hadn't invented digital cameras yet.
just wanted to bump this post again
So science has proven there is no God and evolution......right?
You really don't know how science works, do you?
this applies yet again. sadly this seems to be a theme with your posts on the topic
So after 10,000 years a cat is still a cat?Here's a 10,000 year old painting of a cat and some the cat caught.
Jesus hadn't invented digital cameras yet.
Avante, I -- and I think the whole board -- would appreciate it if you post the scientific method as you understand it.
I feel we need a baseline to figure out what approximate mental age we should be targeting here when you demand to know what 10,000 year old chickens look like, etc.
Sure. Species can exist relatively unchanged for that long easily.So after 10,000 years a cat is still a cat?
How old do you think the earth is, rob?
Hmmm?this applies yet again. sadly this seems to be a theme with your posts on the topic
Excuses
If you are expecting a book with the le, Why Evolution is True to contain proof for the theory of evolution, you will be disappointed. What it really contains is excuses why evolutionists can’t prove evolution is true, why it is unreasonable to expect evolutionists to provide proof, and why you should believe in evolution anyway. Let the excuses begin!
Why We’ve Never Seen It
Nobody has ever observed macroevolution in the laboratory or in nature. Here is his excuse for why we have not.
Further, we shouldn’t expect to see more than small changes in one or a few features of a species—what is known as microevolutionary change. Given the gradual pace of evolution, it’s unreasonable to expect to see selection transforming one “type” of plant or animal into another—so-called macroevolution—within a human lifetime. Though macroevolution is occurring today, we simply won’t be around long enough to see it. Remember that the issue is not whether macroevolutionary change happens—we already know from the fossil record that it does—but whether it was caused by natural selection, and whether natural selection can build complex features and organisms. [italics his] 2
There is a process known as “microevolution” that really does occur. Microevolution is the variation within a species that occurs because of loss of genetic information. But he is talking about “macroevolution,” which is the creation of a new kind of living thing resulting from genetic information that previously did not exist.
Is it unreasonable to expect Christians to provide proof of magic Jesus?
What is your proof of magic Jesus?
Are you just going to copy and paste an entire website without even the most basic understanding of the concepts you aren't trying to discuss?
Yes, yes you are.
This is spamming, Avante.
Although far from complete, the record of human evolution is one of the best confirmations we have of an evolutionary prediction, and is especially gratifying because the prediction was Darwin’s.
But a few caveats. We don’t (and can’t expect to) have a continuous fossil record of human ancestry. Instead, we see a tangled bush of many different species. Most of them went extinct without leaving descendants, and only one genetic lineage threaded its way through time to become modern humans. We’re not sure yet which fossil species lie along that particular thread, and which were evolutionary dead ends. The most surprising thing we’ve learned about our history is that we’ve had many close evolutionary cousins who died out without leaving descendants. It’s even possible that as many as four humanlike species lived in Africa at the same time, and maybe in the same place. Imagine the encounters that might have taken place! Did they kill one another, or try to interbreed? 6
No Excuse for Sex
The origin of sex is one of the hardest things for evolutionists to explain. Coyne doesn’t have an answer. As usual, he just punts.
The question of the number of sexes is a messy theoretical issue that needn’t detain us, except to note that theory shows that two sexes will evolutionarily replace mating systems involving three or more sexes: two sexes is the most robust and stable strategy.
The theory of why the two sexes have different numbers and sizes of gametes is equally messy. This condition presumably evolved from that in earlier sexually reproducing species in which the two sexes had gametes of equal size. 14
I predict he will just keep on pasting.
Why There Are No Missing Links
We don’t find any missing links in the fossil record but, according to Coyne, we should not expect to find any.
Taking into account all of these requirements, it’s clear that the fossil record must be incomplete. … we can estimate that we have fossil evidence of only 0.1 percent to 1 percent of all species—hardly a good sample of the history of life! [italics his] 4
What should our “missing link” with apes look like? Remember that the “missing link” is the single ancestral species that gave rise to modern humans on the one hand and chimpanzees on the other. It’s not reasonable to expect the discovery of that critical single species, for its identification would require a complete series of ancestor-descendant fossils on both the chimp and human lineages, series that we could trace back until they intersect at the ancestor. Except for a few marine microorganisms, such complete fossil sequences don’t exist. And our early human ancestors were large, relatively few in number compared to grazers like antelopes, and inhabited a small part of Africa under dry conditions not conducive to fossilization. Their fossils, like those of all apes and monkeys, are scarce. This resembles our problem with the evolution of birds from feathered reptiles, for whom transitional fossils are also rare. We can certainly trace the evolution of birds from feathered reptiles, but we’re not sure exactly which fossil species were the direct ancestors of modern birds.
Given all this, we can’t expect to find the single particular species that represents the “missing link” between humans and other apes. We can hope only to find its evolutionary cousins. Remember also that this common ancestor was not a chimpanzee, and probably didn’t look like either modern chimps or humans. Nevertheless, it’s likely that the “missing link” was closer in appearance to modern chimps than to modern humans. We are the odd man out in the evolution of modern apes, who all resemble one another far more than they resemble us. 5 [italics his]
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
