-
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!
Creationists, please provide evidence
- Thread starter evolved yet?
- Start date
According to mainstream evolutionary theory... That is not in-line with what it would posit happened in the past.
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
You think phenotype change is from one common ancestor into you and I? NOPE, that is genotype change. You see where I am going?
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
I see that you have no idea what you're talking about. A genotype change would affect a phenotype.
Phenotype expression is dependent upon genotype. If genotype changes, phenotype changes. If phenotype changes, genotype does not change.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Yes, but as I've said, science != observation. The scientific method starts with observation. Then we try to figure out why we observe what we do. If you limit yourself to observation, you don't have science.
All we observe in nature is a flat earth.
All we observe in nature is the sun passing over and setting and rising again.
All we observe in nature is little dots in the sky.
All we observe in nature is that we can charge a light ball by rubbing it with a glass rod. Science explains that through a theory of electricity.
All we observe in nature is the way elements combine. Atomic theory tells us why.
What you're saying is: Don't do science. Because ToE has the same relationship to mere observation as every scientific theory.
Absolutely wrong.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What what would posit? Do you see why you're so hard to understand? Pronouns need to refer to nouns. Yes, mainstream evolutionary theory, aka science, says that all species on earth are descended from a single common ancestor. Do you agree or disagree?
In addition to being very opaque, I also find you rudely evasive. I've asked you several times to tell us what your hypothesis is. If you can't observe common courtesy, and you can't make yourself clear, then you're too much trouble to talk to.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No, as I say, you've utterly confused us. And frankly, I don't think we're the problem.
For the fourth time: ToE, true or false?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Duh. That's what Darwin figured out. What on earth is your point?
Do you have a hypothesis, or don't you? If not, what are you doing in this thread, other than trying to strew it with red herrings?
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
So what?
You do realize that there are other factors in phenotype expressions besides just the genotype, right? An organisms appearance and behaviour can be modified by environmental and developemental conditions.
I still don't see how this limits evolution.
(You still haven't stated your hypothesis, by the way.)
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What is wrong? In what way? Instead of a pronouncement, do you have an argument?
Oh i know all that, but it still only effects phenotype expression. It does not change one genotype into another.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
You're not by any chance that Lamarkian I embarrassed on TWeb around 5 years ago? Can't recall the name.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Exactly. That is, Lamarck was wrong. And?
Are the ape and human genotype the same?
Natural selection selects better genotypes? No it selects better expressions of those genotypes.
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Yes. Well, it would be more accurate to say that the human genotype is one variety of ape genotype.