JohnHeintz
Member
We have evidence NOW. Back then , if a remote control car could be demonstrated, it would have been considered magic or sorcery
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We have evidence NOW. Back then , if a remote control car could be demonstrated, it would have been considered magic or sorcery
Could you please explain the genetic evidence? This is something I could 100% be missing.either
Also, I would very much like to hear an explanation, genetic or otherwise, about how the single cell/eukaryotic cell moved past the biofilm/colony/mold stage to something that was a true multicellular reproductive animal.
Yes, thanks Borg. I did not know this either.@AronRa if you press on the name (left side where also avatar is) of the person you are discussing with a member card opens. On that card it says “follow” press that when he/she makes a post you get an alert (top right bell icon) and email, both are true if you did not alter any preferences. Another option is to press the watch button at the top of the thread but then you get warnings when someone posts. The email notifications works like this:
1. You will get an email when the person you are following makes a post (in any thread or forum where you have access to)
2. You will not get any emails from that thread he/she posted in unless you visit the forum.
3. You will always get a notification (bell icon on the right side).
The above is also how the “watch” button works top right but it for the thread it self.
For example in ring species, two squirrel population can no longer breed but are still squirrels.
Also, I would very much like to hear an explanation, genetic or otherwise, about how the single cell/eukaryotic cell moved past the biofilm/colony/mold stage to something that was a true multicellular reproductive animal.
This is another major sticking point.
Wikipedia: Multicellular organism: Origin hypothesesAlso, I would very much like to hear an explanation, genetic or otherwise, about how the single cell/eukaryotic cell moved past the biofilm/colony/mold stage to something that was a true multicellular reproductive animal.
A couple of things:This is another major sticking point.
Your quotes are a bit weird. They only reference a single word from Aron's post. That's gonna be hard to follow later. Why not add the complete (relevant part of the) quote?Also, I would very much like to hear an explanation, genetic or otherwise, about how the single cell/eukaryotic cell moved past the biofilm/colony/mold stage to something that was a true multicellular reproductive animal.
This is another major sticking point.
Your Bible says that's where you're supposed to draw that line. The Biblical definition of the Hebrew word [min] for "kinds" is effectively identical to the biological species concept, referring to whether two organisms can interbreed productively to "bring forth [fertile offspring] after their kind". That point of division is also referred to as macroevolution because it is the most significant division in all of taxonomy.I understand what you are saying. Tiger and house cat may still be like St Bernard and chihuahua. Just because we draw a line between the two cats, calling them spectate species, because they can't interbreed, doesn't mean we should be drawing that line.
I have to repeat myself again. There is no such thing as a "kind". There was never any point in evolutionary history where one kind of animal changed into a fundamentally different kind of animal. That is a creationist straw-man. Evolution doesn't teach that and doesn't even allow it.Perhaps , the correct way to view them is "some breeds of animals are the same. Some can interbreed and some can't". For example in ring species, two squirrel population can no longer breed but are still squirrels. Maybe tigers and house cat should be viewed this way.
No, it wouldn't.We have evidence NOW. Back then , if a remote control car could be demonstrated, it would have been considered magic or sorcery
I just showed you illustrations taken from two genetic studies. Those are what I was asking you to comment on.Could you please explain the genetic evidence? This is something I could 100% be missing.
You're going at it backwards. We're going to start where we are and peer deeper into time, examining subspecies/breeds first, then species, then genus and so on, according to the Phylogeny Challenge.Also, I would very much like to hear an explanation, genetic or otherwise, about how the single cell/eukaryotic cell moved past the biofilm/colony/mold stage to something that was a true multicellular reproductive animal.
This is another major sticking point.
Since you STILL didn't answer ANY of my questions, I'll have to repeat them all AGAIN.We have evidence NOW. Back then , if a remote control car could be demonstrated, it would have been considered magic or sorcery
If they are related, there is a way to tell. Do you know how we could do that?Anyway. Let's answer your questions about dogs , cats and the deer.
Of course I believe that dog breeds are related to each other and wolves. They probably are related to coyotes and wild dogs and dingoes.
No.The same with breeds of cats. A tiger to a house cat is probably like a st Bernard to a Chihuahua. All different shapes and sizes of the same sort of animal.
Then you would accept that every SPECIES of deer is biologically related, even if they cannot interbreed anymore? You accept that all of these evolved from a common ancestor?Deer species are related. Not sure if a giraffe is part of it. Though I could see a long necked , long legged , short antler deer wouldn't be impossible.
One never changed into a fundamentally different kind? The theory doesn't teach that ?Your Bible says that's where you're supposed to draw that line. The Biblical definition of the Hebrew word [min] for "kinds" is effectively identical to the biological species concept, referring to whether two organisms can interbreed productively to "bring forth [fertile offspring] after their kind". That point of division is also referred to as macroevolution because it is the most significant division in all of taxonomy.
I have to repeat myself again. There is no such thing as a "kind". There was never any point in evolutionary history where one kind of animal changed into a fundamentally different kind of animal. That is a creationist straw-man. Evolution doesn't teach that and doesn't even allow it.
The African wild dog probably is related.
They are biologically similar I'm sure. Whether or not they evolved from a common ancestor, I don't know.
Cats are probably related. Again, whether or not they evolved from one common ancestor, I'm not sure. I don't put so much importance on "interbreeding" as earlier stated. In the ring species scenario animals can no longer breed with some populations of the same animal.
Ok. We can start wherever you like.You're going at it backwards. We're going to start where we are and peer deeper into time, examining subspecies/breeds first, then species, then genus and so on, according to the Phylogeny Challenge.
My disbelief in universal common ancestry has nothing to do with religion , beliefs or religious texts of any kind.A couple of things:
1. The notion of a sticking point is one of those things that appeals to me, so I always like to see if I can wedge some thought in there.
Why is it a sticking point? What's it sticking on, exactly? Are you saying you have to understand how it all works in every detail before you'll accept it? Is this a common stance for you? How familiar are you with the inner workings of the device with which you're communicating your concerns with us? Are you aware that the science underpinning that is not only considerably less complete but also massively less well-evidenced than evolution, which has been observed occurring at every level predicted by the theory?
2. (which is really a riff on 1) In general, when somebody is searching for these kinds of answer, it's because they have some other conclusion that they want to insert rather than the one being offered. Is that the case here? Does the fact that evolution occurs cause some cognitive dissonance with other things you accept as true?
It's perfectly possible to adhere to even very strict iterations of most religions while still accepting the fact that evolution occurs and has been observed occurring at every level predicted by the theory.