"It is clear that there are no extant species that are the result of additional abiogenetic event."
Why is that clear since the evidence for any abiogenesis effect would appear the same in a survivor of an event and one from a new abiogensis event?
You did say earlier that abiogenesis is...
Thanks and I would agree there seems to be pressure that can cause rapid evolutions.
Now how can that be unless there was something in our DNA that responds to a dramatic pressure to speed up the process?
That then conflicts with the idea that evolution is random and a result of selection and...
Preferring one theory over another is not disbelieving. I find it hard to believe that a world famous evolutionists would proffer a theory he knew could not happen and he made it clear it was a possibility.
Whether he believes it is a strong possibility is irrelevant to the point that it is a...
That is assuming that only micro evolution is happening. Add in the odds of random mutations, unsuccessful evolutions, life span and reproduction cycle of the organism and tell me what you get. Those are all increased in a smaller population.
"with no real limitations"
I would have to disagree. It seems that all successful evolution center on survival and reproduction. You could grow an eye where your bellybutton is if any genetic mutation was limitless but those mutations that seem to serve no real purpose are not passed on even...
You will by nature draw conclusions of any question based on a preconceived bias.
That is evident in some of the posts.
Did I do that intentionally- well it got you talking right and who wants to sit around and discuss things only with people you agree with.
What would be the fun in that :)
A question has a question mark after it.
I was relating my experience from talking to amy people that claim to believe in evolution but has never understood that mass extinctions have happened that changes the odds greatly of that theory.
As you can see we got to the crux of what I was after...
Well you obviously have a bias so you want to believe that I am sure. However, Dawkin's did say it and it is a logical theory that other scientists have and are exploring at present.
It it obvious there is a lot of pressure on scientists to never stray into any theory that might open a door for...
"Because you were specifically asking how evolution can take billions of years when there are extinction events "
I never asked that question. I asked how mass extinctions fit into your theories.
"It's simple: the species we see today evolved from the survivors of extinction events."
I'm not...
" Unlike Darwinian evolution there is no supporting framework for intelligent design"
Dawkin's and crick seem to believe there is a supporting framework and the scientists that say life does exit on other planets and could be intelligent is also evidence for that theory. The theory of...
OK, you changed your position there:
" The species we see today DID evolve from the species that survived these extinction events."
" Like I said, we still don't fully understand the process, so we can't be sure of what we would need to look for."
You were strongly saying the species today...
"My thoughts are that there have been five extinctions and we are hell bent on creating the sixth."
We agree on that.
"each evolution is followed by comparatively rapid expansion"
That does seem to be the case. Could that then be a built in trigger into DNA that a stressor would cause rapid...
Now wait a minute?
what resources are you talking about that is necessary for abiogenesis to produce life that would be in short supply when that life is thriving on the planet?