{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/18/2015 4:10:06 AM
2
There are no observations of the actual process. There are observations about what is assumed to be adaptations but that key word is assumed.
English
-
Viruses and diseases are the easiest way to see evolution with your own eyes in your own lifetime.
-
This would explain humanity. We evolved from diseases and viruses.
-
Yes there are, have you heard of a ring species?
-
I have and that only proves that species can adapt. If that were the extent of the Theory of Evolution then I would gladly accept it as fact but the theory tackles many other aspects and makes many assumptions in the process.
-
No it proves that a species can evolve into another species, that is what is literally happening.
-
[quote]No it proves that a species can evolve into another species, that is what is literally happening.[/quote] Darwin's theory involve a species of finches whose beaks adapted to its means of living . Did it turn into a lizard? No it remained a finch. One might bring up that scientist have claimed to have created a single celled organism using proteins and electrical current, does that mean that we evolved by chance ? No it might prove that a very intelligent person or persons using they're very intelligent minds to use the right amount of protein and the right amount of current to create a single cell. All the while doing this to disprove intelligent design yet all the while proving that intelligent design exist ! I'll ask you this much, if you took your house apart piece by piece and placed it in a giant box and shook that box up and down side to side would your house be ever put back together ? Man is trying to prove how smart he is by trying to say we do not have a creator but all he is proving is how dumb he really is look around you this world did not happen by chance
-
A house needs a creator because houses and building do not occur naturally. You can't point out a random tree in a forest and ask that same question. You have demonstrated you have no idea what evolution is. As far as intelligent design goes, it's completely illogical and works for so few cases.
-
[quote]A house needs a creator because houses and building do not occur naturally. You can't point out a random tree in a forest and ask that same question. You have demonstrated you have no idea what evolution is. As far as intelligent design goes, it's completely illogical and works for so few cases.[/quote] ok you said tree? Definition evolution : the gradual process of something, a simple form changing into a more complex form I would say a house is a complex form of a tree
-
Than I would say you are ridiculous if you think a house would become a tree
-
[quote]Than I would say you are ridiculous if you think a house would become a tree[/quote] and I would say you are ridiculous for thinking we come from pond scum since we are more complex than a house
-
are houses living, natural occurrences? Evolution has been DIRECTLY observed on multiple occasions. Look up the research on human chromosome 2, that prooves chimps and bonobos shared a common ancestor with us.
-
Of course it didn't evolve into a lizard. If you understood what a species was would would understand evolution. Things don't work like that.
-
[quote]Of course it didn't evolve into a lizard. If you understood what a species was would would understand evolution. Things don't work like that.[/quote] alright then please explain to me what is a species ?
-
1.That is not the extent of the Theory. Do not use evidence for one aspect to back up the whole. 2. They are adaptations. They are a species with adaptations developing in newer generations. You can't just say that it changed species on a whim and then go so far as to dictate the order in which every species evolved because of the many assumptions that come with that and the difference in biology is drastic between something that all species are supposedly subject too.
-
I'm not dictating the order of anything, things adapt to their environment. Eventually after future adaptations they cannot produce offspring with the original species, making them a new species by definition, that is not an assumption, that is an observation.
-
You are arguing the for the theory which does in fact dictate the order of many species. Conversely you are agreeing with the theories order when you attempt to defend it. Ring species have a key problem in their definition as it implies the whole ring is one species even when not all individuals in the species could interbreed with neighboring populations at all. If you choose to think of the ring species as the population then the problem comes from the fact that it can interbreed with neighboring populations. There is no observation when the very definition of what is presumably a species doesn't even fit the definition of a species.
-
No its the end results from each branch that cannot interbreed making them a separate species. There is not a problem in the fact that each end species can interbreed with the neighboring population. Its that at the end there are two different species, thats undeniable. They cannot interbreed and have offspring, so they are not a species by the definition of a species.
-
Ring species are anomalies by definition. You cannot use anomalies to explain the natural phenomenon that all species are subject too and assume that all species would be subject to this observation. There is no evidence of this being universal.
-
Ring species are not anomalies, they are natural examples of one species branching off resulting in a different species, this has happened in many different species. Genes and DNA confirm that Humans share a common ancestor with chimps and bonobos. Ring species just shows that it does happen in nature, not that it theoretically could happen.
-
Edited by Spookas Vilkas : 3/18/2015 6:26:49 AMRing species are most certainly anomalies. These supposed new species only occur when they are isolated which results in a reduction of genetic diversity. If this is the example of what happened for every species then every species would have reached a point where reproduction is not possible at all and species today would be less complex than the single celled organisms we developed from according to evolution. If this is your definitive evidence then we more biologically advanced in the past.
-
No, all that ring species show is that one organism can change into another one, ring species are just a very specific example.
-
You will lose this battle my good sirr
-
Me or DamnlmDova?
-
You...
-
Animals are made to adapt to situations like weather, habitat Ect. They do not evolve
