• 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

    Enough Time for Evolution?

    Oh so I was wrong the first time. You're NOT asking for proof of branches of the higher taxons in general. You just want proof for specific creatures having common ancestory, i.e. you accept that A and B had common ancestory but not X and Y. Is that right?
  2. AndromedaRXJ

    Enough Time for Evolution?

    So you basically are asking for branches of higher taxons. Speciation isn't good enough anymore, apparently. But you do accept speciation, right?
  3. AndromedaRXJ

    Enough Time for Evolution?

    Even still, what is it you want, proof of speciation? As in a group of creatures capable of interbreeding fertile offsprings, and then branching off into two distinct populations of creatures NOT being able to produce such offsprings? Because that HAS been observed...... in the animal...
  4. AndromedaRXJ

    Enough Time for Evolution?

    None of the links you showed ever mentioned anything about a fertile cama. You are the one who has to prove that before we even move on to the next point.
  5. AndromedaRXJ

    Enough Time for Evolution?

    I don't see anything about a fertile cama in those links and a couple even said the hybrid was sterile. Regardless, fertility has to be able to happen regularly though, like 90% of the time. Camas are generally sterile with exceptional cases. With a species, it's the opposite. Generally...
  6. AndromedaRXJ

    Enough Time for Evolution?

    Source? Pretty sure Camel-Llama hybrids are not fertile. Because Camel's are already a genus with distinct similarities that the Llama doesn't share. Yet there are different groups of camel's that can't reproduce fertile offsprings. So Camels can't be ranked as a species and llamas can't be...
  7. AndromedaRXJ

    Ask me about Evolution

    It could mean our DNA is not of Earth origin, or it could mean that, some how, some life forms have left Earth. It really depends on the details though.
  8. AndromedaRXJ

    Enough Time for Evolution?

    So Macro-evolution isn't "species branching off" anymore. Now it's different genera, families and orders branching off. Well how about instead of just crocodiles, it's crocodiles, alligators, caiman and gharial now? All belong to four different genera and three different families with only...
  9. AndromedaRXJ

    Ask me about Evolution

    I'm saying there are never traits that are not subject to the process of Natural Selection. They're not a byproduct of natural selection, no. Yeah, that's what I've been saying. After the mutations happen(for whatever reason), Natural Selection THEN comes in to play.... always.
  10. AndromedaRXJ

    Ask me about Evolution

    That sounds more like a definition of Evolution it self. It's what gives the word "fitness" any relevance. In the context of Evolution, nothing is "fit" regardless of environment, in other words. Going to sleep now, bye.
  11. AndromedaRXJ

    Ask me about Evolution

    Nope. No more than random mutations. You're just pointing out alternatives to changes to genes themselves, but not an alternative to what survives and what doesn't. In short, Natural Selection is a process where the environment determines what traits(specifically, genes) survive and what don't...
  12. AndromedaRXJ

    Ask me about Evolution

    We're speaking about what makes evolution a workable theory, not what details a body of knowledge has or hasn't. I think you're missing the point entirely. I'm not suggesting those factors you mention aren't real or don't happen. I'm suggesting evolution can happen without them. It can not...
  13. AndromedaRXJ

    Ask me about Evolution

    It's simply. If you take away Natural Selection, the whole theory falls apart. You can take away all those other things you mentioned though, and the theory still works fine. And no matter what, all traits that come about(for whatever reason) have to answer to Natural Selection.
  14. AndromedaRXJ

    Ask me about Evolution

    It's allowed by Natural Selection. It's not like these processes you mentioned somehow bypassed Natural Selection. The processes you mention, has to, in a sense, answer to Natural Selection first before they happen. Neutral mutations are neutral with respect to the environment, not despite it...
  15. AndromedaRXJ

    Ask me about Evolution

    Nope. There isn't any major unsolved problems or any physical evidence that Evolution runs into that greatly shakes up it's foundation. Not that I can think of anyway. Natural Selection doesn't cause any mutations themselves. Mutations happen randomly, and whatever mutation is most advantages...
  16. AndromedaRXJ

    Ask me about Evolution

    From what I understand, there aren't really gaps in the theory it self, there's just gaps in the fossil record. The theory it self is very solid and is backed by a lot more than just fossils.
  17. AndromedaRXJ

    Evidence

    Not before the person gets hungry. If someone could hypothetically never get hungry, then they don't need food and won't die(from hunger).
  18. AndromedaRXJ

    Ask me about Evolution

    The thing is, the concept of a creator isn't needed to account for the similarities among creatures. And while a coincidence is technically possible, anyone who argues it doesn't understand just how outrageous of a coincidence it would have to be in order for evolution to not be true. There...
  19. AndromedaRXJ

    Ask me about Evolution

    Hardly. They have no activity; not until they have a host anyway. Otherwise, they are organic inanimate objects. It's like saying a dead body is a living organism because it has DNA. No it's not. There's no activity. A dead body meets as much "criteria" as a virus and then some. To argue...
  20. AndromedaRXJ

    Ask me about Evolution

    That's right, DNA is not living. They're just extremely complex molecules. Viruses aren't living either though they are more than just molecules, if I remember correctly.
Top