God

[kevin kiely 66]

look up richard dawkins stumped by creationists question

[Tozer 385]

You stumped one man who didn't have an answer there and then:

 

[Tozer 385]

By all means believe in god, don't use it to discredit science..

[tinytiger 840]

 

id agree 90% with darwinds theory-was going to put up the finch link myself..theres massive gaps in it i.m.o-no fossils of intermediate forms are found..and nature seems to have basic plans that it adheres to e.g the sipmilarity of the extinct australian wolf(thylacine) to placental canids...if it was just completely blind and directionless theres no way that could happen

 

It isn't completely blind, it runs via very very minor advantages, that is each generation shows a 0.0001% better survival for a certain trait, over a million years that adds up to a new species, or two different species( because the difference is not strong enough for the other to fail).

 

The thylacine is an example of divergent eveolution, like the hedgehog and the Madagascan Tenrecs.

 

but what advantage would say,some creature halfway between a wallaby and a thylacine have(granted australia is a niche rich environment and isolated)..personally id say hormones could play a big part--maybe some cataclysmic event forced some ancestral population into dietary change which led to it

[kevin kiely 66]

what the first common ancestor crop up from

[Tozer 385]

 

 

id agree 90% with darwinds theory-was going to put up the finch link myself..theres massive gaps in it i.m.o-no fossils of intermediate forms are found..and nature seems to have basic plans that it adheres to e.g the sipmilarity of the extinct australian wolf(thylacine) to placental canids...if it was just completely blind and directionless theres no way that could happen

 

It isn't completely blind, it runs via very very minor advantages, that is each generation shows a 0.0001% better survival for a certain trait, over a million years that adds up to a new species, or two different species( because the difference is not strong enough for the other to fail).

 

The thylacine is an example of divergent eveolution, like the hedgehog and the Madagascan Tenrecs.

 

but what advantage would say,some creature halfway between a wallaby and a thylacine have(granted australia is a niche rich environment and isolated)..personally id say hormones could play a big part--maybe some cataclysmic event forced some ancestral population into dietary change which led to it

 

 

A wallaby/kangaroo existed at the same time, two ends of an evolutionary trail. Tracing back, there was a point where one became a herbivore and the other carnivore. by chance the carnivore took a quadruped form similar to a wolf.

The other took the energy conservative mode of hopping in a land where vegetation and food can be far apart.

 

There are not physical fossil links on record because a: we haven't found it yet and b: the chance encounters that lead to it being fossilised are so slim.

 

Shoot a rabbit, sling it in the hedge, what are the chances of that rabbit being there in a few week yet alone a few thousand or a few million years?

[The Seeker 3,048]

 

 

Not one that would satisfy you. Plenty that satisfy biologists though...

 

not all of them-its only a theory..no im not a creationist..id say modern livestock and crops are a good example of evolution(but they are still cows or spuds or pigs)..theres no proof of one species evolving into something differnt.

But there is, there is masses of it. You just don't want to see it. You can cross and Aylesbury with a mallard, a dog with a wolf, you can't cross a fox with a dog. It takes a long time of divergence and a chance successful genetic change to make it so species cannot interbreed.

"You can cross and Aylesbury with a mallard" But it remains a duck

"dog with a wolf, you can't cross a fox with a dog" But it remains a canine

 

No offence but this is what I mean by not understanding and reading the subject. Darwin spoke of a change of SPECIES not a development of a breed.

 

Anyway I will leave you guys to it

[Tozer 385]

 

 

 

id agree 90% with darwinds theory-was going to put up the finch link myself..theres massive gaps in it i.m.o-no fossils of intermediate forms are found..and nature seems to have basic plans that it adheres to e.g the sipmilarity of the extinct australian wolf(thylacine) to placental canids...if it was just completely blind and directionless theres no way that could happen

 

It isn't completely blind, it runs via very very minor advantages, that is each generation shows a 0.0001% better survival for a certain trait, over a million years that adds up to a new species, or two different species( because the difference is not strong enough for the other to fail).

 

The thylacine is an example of divergent eveolution, like the hedgehog and the Madagascan Tenrecs.

 

but what advantage would say,some creature halfway between a wallaby and a thylacine have(granted australia is a niche rich environment and isolated)..personally id say hormones could play a big part--maybe some cataclysmic event forced some ancestral population into dietary change which led to it

 

 

A wallaby/kangaroo existed at the same time, two ends of an evolutionary trail. Tracing back, there was a point where one became a herbivore and the other carnivore. by chance the carnivore took a quadruped form similar to a wolf.

The other took the energy conservative mode of hopping in a land where vegetation and food can be far apart.

 

There are not physical fossil links on record because a: we haven't found it yet and b: the chance encounters that lead to it being fossilised are so slim.

 

Shoot a rabbit, sling it in the hedge, what are the chances of that rabbit being there in a few week yet alone a few thousand or a few million years?

 

 

because it wasn't clear, that ancestor may have been a quadruped or a biped. For what ever reason it was more advantages to be a quad carnivore and biped herbivore, again by 0.000000.....00001% that over the years left behind what you mention.

[kevin kiely 66]

look up peter hitchens deus existe SIM(does god exist)

[Tozer 385]

 

 

 

Not one that would satisfy you. Plenty that satisfy biologists though...

not all of them-its only a theory..no im not a creationist..id say modern livestock and crops are a good example of evolution(but they are still cows or spuds or pigs)..theres no proof of one species evolving into something differnt.

But there is, there is masses of it. You just don't want to see it. You can cross and Aylesbury with a mallard, a dog with a wolf, you can't cross a fox with a dog. It takes a long time of divergence and a chance successful genetic change to make it so species cannot interbreed.

"You can cross and Aylesbury with a mallard" But it remains a duck

"dog with a wolf, you can't cross a fox with a dog" But it remains a canine

 

No offence but this is what I mean by not understanding and reading the subject. Darwin spoke of a change of SPECIES not a development of a breed.

 

Anyway I will leave you guys to it

 

 

That is what I am getting at, we have affected breeds, we haven't taken them far enough yet to make a species, but they are a classic example of a breed. Darwin uses them to show how we can genetically change an animal so massively you woudn't recognise it, but still they are the same.

 

It takes something a lot longer to make it a species, something that because it is longer than a human generation many people can't comprehend.

[tinytiger 840]

 

 

 

Not one that would satisfy you. Plenty that satisfy biologists though...

not all of them-its only a theory..no im not a creationist..id say modern livestock and crops are a good example of evolution(but they are still cows or spuds or pigs)..theres no proof of one species evolving into something differnt.

But there is, there is masses of it. You just don't want to see it. You can cross and Aylesbury with a mallard, a dog with a wolf, you can't cross a fox with a dog. It takes a long time of divergence and a chance successful genetic change to make it so species cannot interbreed.

"You can cross and Aylesbury with a mallard" But it remains a duck

"dog with a wolf, you can't cross a fox with a dog" But it remains a canine

 

No offence but this is what I mean by not understanding and reading the subject. Darwin spoke of a change of SPECIES not a development of a breed.

 

Anyway I will leave you guys to it

 

is it not a matter of degree-he also wrote a book called " the varation of animals and plants uand er domestication"-and got a lot of his ideas from dog and pigeion breeders

[frazdog 252]

ok lads evoloution,what does it mean its a crafty one they sneek it in with truth,

 

darwin watched finches,all diff species,what were they a BIRD,plain an simple,

 

when your talking evoloution you need to define what you mean so your on same page,

 

darwinan evo means a dog changing to a cat,no if or buts,gradually over millions of years,that what evoloutionists think how we got here,

 

it rained on rocks for millions of years,then soup came outa rocks then the soup evo to a tadpole then fish then reptile then amphibian then who knows to monkeys to now,thats what were talking here a change of kind into something else,which has never been seen past present or future, not diff species of birds,like darwin sid,if no intermediate fossils are found then gis theory is up shit creek an they havent.

 

 

ok could someone give me an example of origin evo gow man got here,WITHOUT USING FAITH?

[Tiercel 6,986]

It's micro v macro Ground hog day.

 

TC

[Tozer 385]

They can but it takes a lot of reading, the pope himself acknowledged this, I have said it in all my posts, evolution does not remove religion. show's a path.

 

Religion is there to guide people to do right, the ten commandments. don't cheat, steal, murder or generally be a d*ck, the only point you are focussing on is the 'made in his own image'.

 

Your problem is thinking you are more important than the chimp, dog, cat or amoeba. We are all the same.

[Truther 1,579]

Quick question Fraz, brief answer will do mate. Did god flood the earth and kill every human apart from Noah and his family? And if so did they produce all the people alive today, no matter what race?