I'd say it rather demonstrates my point that finding parts of the Bible to be myth, ie moral stories and not actual fact is common amongst christians and says little by itself about the veracity of any of these beliefs and so whatever you or someone believes about individual parts of the Bible...
He has no idea, but he is sure that he is right without being able to define any of these terms himself.
He only complains that we haven't used them correctly. :(
Pretty much every history of the founding of the US is a myth which is not to say that it doesn't include truths and facts, but being a story about the origin of a populace it qualifies as a myth as well.
Again you equivocate your 5 year old's understanding of evolution and the actual science by confusing terminology and your desire to demonstrate some sort of higher power/direction.
Gills have evolved once long ago and all fish that have them evolved not independantly, but from an ancestor...
But it is true as you demonstrate with most every post such as this recent series asking if given enough time would air breathers develop gills.
It is a perfect example of not understanding at a very basic level.
No, evolution does not have a purpose or a goal so there is no such thing as selective pressure to form gills.
Your hypotheticals only express a lack of understanding of evolutionary processes.
That said there would be some advantage to breathing under water, such as in the sea snakes who have...
If wishes were horses then beggars would ride and other trivialities, BTW, a better example of air breathers becoming fully aquatic would be sea snakes who can stay submerged for 5-6 hours because they have evolved to absorb oxygen through their skin. Gill formation starts from a very different...
I didn't say the Bible is wrong, I said that some believers that claim to write textbooks based on their interpretation are often wrong relative to demonstrated knowledge of reality and have neither veracity or evidence to back up their positions, two very important things for textbooks to teach...
And if you took this phylogenetic tree and named it according to what we call the topmost level you would call it popularly fish, it has some Latin name that few including me would remember. It would be a clade if we include the highlighted branch but some object to that because it interferes...
She was selected by the persons who voted for Biden in the primaries to select a candidate at the convention in Chicago.
When Biden released them, they coalesced around Harris.
The only people who seem to have a problem seem to be people like you who don't seem to understand the procedure.
Oh, they probably even want to cancel our measurement systems, and go to that crazy French system all those egg headed scientists use.
They have already taken over cars, I can't even take these new ones apart, the bolt heads keep rounding off. Erg
No, that has nothing to do with what can potentially happen, those categories are as a result of our history.
that tiny bit of a link from 2012 is about cladistics.
You need to stop using strawmen, apes becoming water dwellers is not equivalent to becoming water breathers.
As to why humans could be considered fish, you need to go back and understand my post about clades because it is not what you are pretending.
No, you still don't understand, there is nothing in evolution that prevents mammals from becoming aquatic, but that does not make them fish nor any breathing method gills. It is a dumb question because all you need to do is understand that Whales and porpoises are mammals where what you are...