Search results

Oops I meant neural drift, accidentally wrote "genetic". I'll phrase again. In fact, there is no evidence of what is called "neural drift." This is an invented explanation that creates a deflection from the real problem. The problem is that the results of this study do not agree with the...

look how you're saying I'm "assuming" while your just stating that "Actually evolution has explained all of these things", but you didn't even gave any explanation.. just assumed evolution adequately explain them. like the origin of the reproductive system and consciousness, how can you say you...

Scientific predictions emerge as a logical necessity from scientific theories. Scientists use these predictions to evaluate the validity of a scientific theory. If the experiments and observations fulfill the predictions of the theory, then scientists consider the theory to be appropriate. If...

I read it but maybe I missed it, could you point out where in the citation it gives the evidence?

All you said is that they are the same species, is that it?

Well, yeah, but we all do this. Because you have a larger understanding than me, then when you picture evolutionary processes they are more accurate than what I'm picturing, but I don't see the problem with saying "in my head".. are you saying that when you picture evolutionary processes, are...

Because they were in a specific environment, and were "stable" there, then they moved to quite a different environment, so they had different selective pressures (being tasty and so on), and when I'm picturing in my head returning to the same environment - they would not need to be tasty or...

I don't think I understand some of it. Could you explain further about that please: "There is a caveat here is that within a single interbreeding population, the dominant gene pool tends to restrict diversity, such that notable variation typically occurs in smaller, more isolated populations. If...

And I don't have a problem with any of it. you said "by evidence and experience without contradiction" So that's what I want to see, the evidence and the non contradiction. Right, and I understand that too. So here I don't agree. I believe in the big bang as well, I have seen the evidence...

So if I accept speciation it means I accept all members of the same group is related? Why are you making it harder than it is? they are the same species, is that it, or maybe there is more evidence?

I can't answer the phylogeny challenge. And I know you don't really like philosophy, but to say that because I can't prove evolution is false (answering the challenge) - therefore its true, is a fallacy. And I know what you're gonna say, that you have a working theory and yeah I get it, but I...

I don't think its difficult to accept, I agree. But I don't think I believe it yet (the common ancestor of those plants). I read the explanation, is there evidence as well? maybe I missed it. The evidence shouldn't be too difficult, like growing them in natural conditions and seeing them evolve...

Oh haha Thank you very much And about the "a monkey is any member of the taxonomic clade of Anthropoidea" But then, without characteristics, how do you tell who belongs to that clade and who is not?

I don't know any of the details, except what you showed in the picture. I do understand artificial selection, but can you show all of these domesticated plants came from this one plant?

Okay, it does make sense, I accept that. There is something you said in one of your videos and I'm not sure I get it. you said: Primates are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based... ... metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally symmetrical, endothermic...

Well, the similarities are explained in the citation, but no, I didn't study the anatomical features of their eyes. And its not just the eyes, there are a few similarities in those 2, and according to what they say, those are very precise similarities.

@Call Me Emo Thank you, I accept convergent evolution, but this case in particular seemed strange because of the high complexity. you wrote: Could you expand on that?

Aron, to make it clear, are you saying that the similar hunting style is incidental, and the other similar traits followed from that in not so incidental ways (i.e same selective pressures), because of the similar hunting style? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm asking because I'm trying to...

If it was a pegasus and a bird, would you say that too? "We know how evolutionary principles can follow avenues of practicality this way" show me, how evolution explain that.

I agree with most of it, although: "different features in a particular order that would not happen the same way twice." Why did you ignore my link? I gave you a link of 2 completely different animals with surprising phenomenon of convergence in terrestrial and aquatic enviorments; sandlance and...