• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Search results

  1. AndromedaRXJ

    Evolution and Creationism: because ...

    What a poisonous mindset.
  2. AndromedaRXJ

    Intelligent Design is a Fact- Evolution is a Theory!

    Breeding organisms involves a form of selection called artificial selection. But in a broader sense, nature can be defined as anything that simply happens, and humans are part of nature. So artificial selection can be argued to be natural selection as well. See? I can play with words too.
  3. AndromedaRXJ

    Homosexuality and Evolution

    I don't think there's any single reason why someone might end up homosexual. There could be some people who are homosexual due to some genetic factor. There could be others who are homosexual due to environment, upbrining, or "choice", or something else. There could be people that are homosexual...
  4. AndromedaRXJ

    Everybody needs faith in something, right?

    It depends what you mean by faith. I don't believe anything without evidence though.
  5. AndromedaRXJ

    If We Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are Monkeys Still Around?

    I'm not hung up on it. Like I said before, I'm fine with paraphyletic and polyphyletic groupings, but only when it's useful. Grouping organisms that way "just because" is what I don't agree with. You haven't presented a reason as to why monkeys should be considered a polyphyletic group. Their...
  6. AndromedaRXJ

    If We Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are Monkeys Still Around?

    Again, under what basis? The only way you can argue this is to argue that monkeys are a polyphyletic group (evolved twice). Again, polyphyletic groups are defined strictly by convergence. What defining "monkey feature" is shared between old world and new world monkeys that is also convergent...
  7. AndromedaRXJ

    If We Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are Monkeys Still Around?

    So you're arguing that monkeys are a polyphyletic group. Polyphyletic groups are strictly defined by convergence. E.g. the set of animals containing endotherms are polyphyletic (birds and mammals) since the defining feature of endotherms are convergent between mammals and birds. The defining...
  8. AndromedaRXJ

    If We Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are Monkeys Still Around?

    Yes, it's saying exactly what I just said. Look at what I bolded in your quote. It illustrates the earliest anthropoidea splitting off into two distinct lineages. Catarrhines and new world monkeys (40 million years ago). Catarrhines further splits off into apes and old world monkeys (25 million...
  9. AndromedaRXJ

    If We Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are Monkeys Still Around?

    Look at the first picture you posted. The red circle marks the split between old world monkeys and apes. Both of which form the clade catarrhini, which is a clade that excludes new world monkeys. Further back in time, catarrhini and new world monkeys split. Old world monkeys are more related...
  10. AndromedaRXJ

    If We Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are Monkeys Still Around?

    Well that depends what one means by "completely different" which Theweirdtophat has failed to define. To me, "completely different" would be something utterly alien. So different in such a way that it wouldn't be able to be placed on a phylogenetic tree. Theweirdtophat fails to understand...
  11. AndromedaRXJ

    If We Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are Monkeys Still Around?

    Bugs (arthropods) did not evolve into reptiles. No one has ever made that claim. No you don't. Not at all. Basically, you're debating against what you think it claims rather than what it really claims. You're also not defining some of the terms you're using. What constitute as a "kind"? What...
  12. AndromedaRXJ

    If We Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are Monkeys Still Around?

    Fish and tetrapods are both variations of vertebrate chordates. They're not completely different. There are more fundamental similarities than differences.
  13. AndromedaRXJ

    If We Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are Monkeys Still Around?

    What I mean is humans have monkey ancestors.
  14. AndromedaRXJ

    If We Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are Monkeys Still Around?

    We did, technically.
  15. AndromedaRXJ

    If We Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are Monkeys Still Around?

    Yeah, the stories are comforting. That is, only when they're meant to be comforting. When religion is about control, then it's the complete opposite of comforting. Threats of eternal torture in an everlasting inferno? God's wrath in the form of global floods? 7 deadly sins? Yeah, screw that mess.
  16. AndromedaRXJ

    If We Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are Monkeys Still Around?

    Sometimes I like to think of tetrapods as "land fish". Cladistically, we can be considered multicellular bacteria as well. The thing is though, many paraphyletic groups have a significant usefulness to them. Fish are very diverse and fill a completely different niche than tetrapods. So I...
  17. AndromedaRXJ

    If We Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are Monkeys Still Around?

    If Americans came from Europeans, then why are there still Europeans? If I came from my parents, then why are my parents still alive? If English is a Germanic language, then why do we still have German? =P
  18. AndromedaRXJ

    Required evidence for design?

    I think above all else, if IDers came up with a theoretical framework where an intelligent designer was at the core of this theory, and this theory made predictions and yielded applications, then you'd have something. Not the pseudoscience that we see where excuses are made for its discrepancies.
  19. AndromedaRXJ

    Required evidence for design?

    If life suggested no phylogeny, then it would mean that evolution is false. And it may suggest a conscious creator depending on the details, or it could mean life arises due to some entirely different natural process that's responsible for life. If it parallels the variation patters seen in...
  20. AndromedaRXJ

    Required evidence for design?

    Did you see the video I posted about what designed life forms might be like?
Top