YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What insult?Then explain it or withdraw your insult with an apology
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What insult?Then explain it or withdraw your insult with an apology
Um...I hate to say this, but I'm betting no money on the fact that you will get no answer except to tell you don't understand...lol...uneducated and etc. in that vein. Vein? Oh no, that's a metaphor...lol...Really?! I wasn't aware of this. When I studied the subject back in the '50's and '60's it wasn't treated as such. It was considered part of the cause of Evolution but not considered part of survival of the fittest or natural selection.
I wonder who died and left females as the architects of "natural selection". Mother Nature?
There are species that the female doesn't or doesn't really have such power. Even in major species there are those where a single dominant male does most of the mating with an entire herd. I seriously doubt any individual female who finds this male unacceptable is going to strike out on her own and start a new herd but then I don't claim to know such things or to have all the answers.
I appreciate the info.
Um...I hate to say this, but I'm betting no money on the fact that you will get no answer except to tell you don't understand...lol...uneducated and etc. in that vein. Vein? Oh no, that's a metaphor...lol...
What insult?
Um...I hate to say this, but I'm betting no money on the fact that you will get no answer except to tell you don't understand...lol...uneducated and etc. in that vein. Vein? Oh no, that's a metaphor...lol...
I'm not. You're not listening. A trivial similarity does not a bottleneck make.You are still ignoring the point.
That's not completely true from my experience how breeding is done and that stock actually still exists. It can be called on again at will and need.Once a breeding stock is separated from the population there is no need that it continue to exist for the breeder.
No one said they do. Dogs had been under selection for traits that made them a desirable basis for breeding long before humans made a concerted effort to do so. Dog breeders don't start with wolves and get poodles in the first place. They start with some breed of dog. It's ridiculous to use your claim as evidence in support of breeding or bottlenecks.Dog breeders do not capture wolves to breed new dog species.
I have no idea what you are rambling on a bout here. Not that it matters. You have been corrected sufficiently. I would suggest you read What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr and The Theory of Evolution Canto edition by John Maynard Smith. Both of those scientists were above even my pay grade, so certainly above yours I would say. Those are pretty easy to read for someone like you that has no significant knowledge of biology and they are full of evidence and explanation.That they may have early in the process is irrelevant to the point. It is equally irrelevant that they had existed or might continue to exist. If they continue to exist it could become relevant in the future only if the new species can still mate with the original AND they actually do.
Not at all. No species has been observed to change from a bottleneck. Same species entering, experiencing and exiting the bottleneck event. Radically fewer numbers and potentially much reduced genetic variation.This simply is how all known species have been observed to originate.
I believe this is all made up. It has no support of the evidence. You certainly never provide evidence for your wild speculation.Unusual individuals survive an artificial bottleneck and suddenly create a new species.
You can propose it, but you can't support it. It defies the evidence.I am merely proposing this is the exact same way nature does it AND that our ancestor species observed this and duplicated it to invent farming.
Someone claiming a thing to exist as if they know it as fact without the ability to demonstrate it is a fact. That outrageous? Yes, I think so.What is so outrageous other than the way it was discovered?
Maybe you should actually read what is known about the origins of agriculture before you start speculating wildly with no real basis to do so and be taken seriously.How else would ancient superstitious people come to understand that they could use nature for their own benefit? Why wouldn't ancient people have observed upside down flies or flying cockroaches and then used this knowledge, this theory, to try to create a steady food supply that allowed them to live more efficiently and provide more leisure?
Maybe you do, but I recognize that there are 150,000 species of flies and almost 5,000 species of cockroaches.We believe one fly or one cockroach is just like another except that some are more fit than others.
No one has shown that it is relevant, so why worry about it.We believe consciousness is irrelevant to speciation and even to life itself.
And that you sound like you can't and that may be the problem here. You seem to reason to things that don't reflect reality.We believe we can reason to conclusions that are reflective of reality.
No one says that. What you have here from the beginning of this paragraph is an entire series of straw man claims.We believe there is such a thing as intelligence and we have it in spades while other animals are each lacking individually and collectively.
Another straw man. You seem to love straw man arguments among other fallacious arguments.We believe we see reality and if there were any blind spots science will eventually fill them or God will allow us to see when it suits His purpose.
Experiments support the theory of evolution. They don't seem to support your claims and whatever you call "your theory" seems to be a belief system without basis in any sort of evidence or experience.But we can't show any of these things and experiment again and again shows them to be false or wholly unsupported (by experiment).
Now you are moving the goal posts. We can reason to conclusions in this version, but not without assumptions. Not that I disagree, but still, it is moving the goal posts as well contradicting your previous straw man on the subject.There is no reason to believe anybody can reason to a conclusion free of the starting assumptions.
There is no reason to accept your claim here.There is no reason to suppose there is such a thing as "intelligence" as we define it.
Another flawed and failed argument in defiance of the evidence and as empty as all your other claims.There is no need to believe in survival of the fittest rather than that this belief led inexorably to the "Theory of Evolution". Without any experiment to confirm the theory we merely interpreted the experiments that did exist to support it.
I know that if a claim sound outrageous and the one claiming it refuses to do anything but run when asked to support their claim, it is probably so much balloon juice.I know. If it's not in a textbook then you're wrong. You can even paraphrase the text and they'll say you are wrong.
Perhaps by those completely unfamiliar with science and are prone to hold most of their knowledge as belief.A lot of scientific knowledge is held as beliefs.
Unsubstantiated and empty claim. It may be true for someone that doesn't really understand the science and is basically creating their own scientism. I have some thoughts on who that might be.A lot of what is believed to be science is actually circular reasoning.
I believe you are one that doesn't believe you can be wrong.Anyone who believes he can't be wrong does not understand the nature of science.. ...you know... ...metaphysics.
And yet you talk of ancient science and the morphology and physiology of ancient brains as if all you say is established fact. Your demurral doesn't fit with what looks like your delivery of revealed truth.I know full well I can be wrong and am virtually a professional at being wrong.
On that I would agre.I'm very good at it and have a great deal of practice.
Not in these discussions.But what some may not understand is that I've been right before as well.
The insults and dismissal of sound responses because they are not understood seems to be all that is available in response to the fact that the crowd supporting the rejection of science is recognized for their duality and ignorance.You mean like what you posted to me?
I would add that nothing you have claimed is supported in any written work except your own and then only as bare claims with no support.I know. If it's not in a textbook then you're wrong. You can even paraphrase the text and they'll say you are wrong.
A lot of scientific knowledge is held as beliefs. A lot of what is believed to be science is actually circular reasoning.
Anyone who believes he can't be wrong does not understand the nature of science.. ...you know... ...metaphysics.
I know full well I can be wrong and am virtually a professional at being wrong. I'm very good at it and have a great deal of practice. But what some may not understand is that I've been right before as well.