It's evidence you don't pay attention to posts, or learn from them.OMG! That's so important! Thank you for pointing that out!
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It's evidence you don't pay attention to posts, or learn from them.OMG! That's so important! Thank you for pointing that out!
You are committing the logical fallacy of ad honimen and argument by assertion.In the case of @Rise it's not a fallacy; it's simply true.
What are you talking about? Evolution is change, call it morphing, transmogrification, metamorhosis or whatever.So, now they do morph. Y'all really need to make up your minds.
You ever heard of putting lipstick on a pig?
No matter how much lipstick you smack on that Darwin pig, he doesn't look any better to people that aren't already indoctrinated.
At one time there was nothing but a species of one cell animals. Science says they grew into other species. Isn't that evolution?Please find a single example of anyone other than a creationist claiming that evolution says that one species grows into another species.
Apparently you don't understand DNA. The information is genetic. It's just spelling changes.Yeah and I bet you had to add more parts to get from a wheel bearing to a full automobile. I worked lots of assembly lines. There was always a works prep that they had to supply the line.
The problem with macroevolution, is that the other parts, the additional information, isn't available.
I have not always agrees with everything you say but I must agree that you are a wise person with many good ideas. And I agree completely that animals can and do change. But going from one cell animals to fish and birds is a lot more than just small changes adding up over time. There has to be other factors involved.Let me just add that I have asked numerous people here for evidence of some sort of "wall" that stops "micro-evolution" from becoming "macro-evolution", and yet not one person over several years of me asking this same exact question has provided one shred of such evidence.
Logically, small changes can add up over time. One summer I was working at Chrysler Corp in final assembly, and I was involved at the beginning of that assembly process. If one didn't know better, they would have no idea what the finished product would even look like.
The ToE in no way negates the concept of Divine creation, thus any church or denomination that teaches that it does is simply not telling the truth, such as the fundamentalist church I first started attending as a child and left when in my 20's because of this and a couple of other reasons. My point is too many people are being misled to by their pastors on this, and many of these pastors know this according to a study several decades ago.
So, why do some of them do this? Largely for two main reasons according to the study, with one of them being that the leaders of the denomination expect them to deny the evolutionary process whereas the other is that the congregation itself expects them to deny evolution. If they ignore either, they could find themselves out of a job.
I know you just loooooove to play the logical fallacy card, even in cases like this where it's not at all applicable, but just a suggestion.....find another tactic.You are committing the logical fallacy of bait and switch.
Um.....I went by your own post! You posted a definition of "adaptation" that explicitly described it as an evolutionary process ("it is the dynamic evolutionary process that...").The fallacy is when you take one concept which you can prove and then try to claim that proves a different concept which you can't prove by pretending these two concepts are actually the same.
??????? You're not even making the slightest bit of sense here. First, where has anyone said anything like what you describe (proving epigenetic adaptation proves universal common descent)? Be specific.Proving epigenetic adapation happens doesn't logically prove that cells could evolve into mankind if given enough time.
Show specifically where anyone has done that.Calling them both evolution purposely introduces confusion whereby you try to claim cells to man evolution is proven because you'e proven adaptation evolution happens.
If you mean evolutionary common descent requires the evolution of new functional genetic sequences, then that's been observed countless times. If you mean something else, then define "new functional genetic code information" in a way that allows us to identify and measure it.The cell to man evolution would require mechanisms and processes that aren't part of how we know adaptation works. Ie. The introduction of new functional genetic code information into an organism rather than merely toggling the switches of the genetic code that is already there.
Good thing no one has done that.So you can't claim adaption proves cells to man evolution because the process of adaptation by itself doesn't have the requisite features to make cells to man evolution conceptually possible.
And yet you miss the main point. Children of Spanish speakers and children of French speakers are all HUMAN because their parents are human. If a Spanish speaking human gives birth to a puppy, that will be similar to saying these tiny one cell animals somehow became fish.Do you doubt the various dating methods? If so, why?
Do you understand how the dating works?
Yes. Small changes accumulate into big changes.
When people reproduce, their children speak the same language as the parents. Latin speakers don't make French or Spanish speakers.
Yet French and Spanish speakers exist, and they did not in the past. How did that happen?
The genetic shuffling of information that drives adaptation happens all the time, with every new generation, through reproductive variation or mutation. No need for epigenetics.You are committing the logical fallacy of bait and switch.
The fallacy is when you take one concept which you can prove and then try to claim that proves a different concept which you can't prove by pretending these two concepts are actually the same.
Proving epigenetic adapation happens doesn't logically prove that cells could evolve into mankind if given enough time. Calling them both evolution purposely introduces confusion whereby you try to claim cells to man evolution is proven because you'e proven adaptation evolution happens. Even though as concepts they are completely different.
The cell to man evolution would require mechanisms and processes that aren't part of how we know adaptation works. Ie. The introduction of new functional genetic code information into an organism rather than merely toggling the switches of the genetic code that is already there.
So you can't claim adaption proves cells to man evolution because the process of adaptation by itself doesn't have the requisite features to make cells to man evolution conceptually possible.
Nope, for two reasons. First, it's only the fallacy if I say something like "Rise is ignorant of the subject, therefore his statement is false". Merely pointing out your ignorance without any "therefore....." is not the fallacy.You are committing the logical fallacy of ad honimen
Do you understand what an analogy is?And yet you miss the main point. Children of Spanish speakers and children of French speakers are all HUMAN because their parents are human. If a Spanish speaking human gives birth to a puppy, that will be similar to saying these tiny one cell animals somehow became fish.
Yup, but I don't think Rise even understands many of the concepts he's trying to argue. But it's not like we haven't seen that before....The genetic shuffling of information that drives adaptation happens all the time, with every new generation, through reproductive variation or mutation. No need for epigenetics.
Do you understand that offspring are the same species as their parents? No analogy needed.Do you understand what an analogy is?
Depends how you define "grow into." Science points to a gradual accumulation of small changes. You keep representing the claim as a sudden transformation.At one time there was nothing but a species of one cell animals. Science says they grew into other species. Isn't that evolution?
I guess you really did miss the point.lostwanderingsoul said: ↑
Do you understand that offspring are the same species as their parents? No analogy needed.
Argument from incredulity - WikipediaI have not always agrees with everything you say but I must agree that you are a wise person with many good ideas. And I agree completely that animals can and do change. But going from one cell animals to fish and birds is a lot more than just small changes adding up over time. There has to be other factors involved.
And what do you say when that's not the case? New species arising in one generation via hybridization is extremely common in plants for example.Do you understand that offspring are the same species as their parents? No analogy needed.
The genetic shuffling of information that drives adaptation happens all the time, with every new generation, through reproductive variation or mutation. No need for epigenetics.
Those cells never became "something other than that they are". Everything that lives is a *variation* of what those cells were.At one time there was nothing but a species of one cell animals. Science says they grew into other species. Isn't that evolution?
Because they have slightly different DNA coding. But they don't have the coding to give birth to another species, no matter how much time passes.Apparently you don't understand DNA. The information is genetic. It's just spelling changes.
Have you ever seen a litter of puppies or kittens? Are they all the same? Where did the new information come from? Why aren't they identical to their parents?
If that were true, then the alphabet must contain all the information in the universe. After all, there's no information that can't be represented by rearranging parts of the alphabet.Shuffling of existing information around is not the same as creating new information.