Isn't this cute?

[YoursTrue]

You know we all want to make you laugh. It makes the world a little softer.



Sorry my wife's King Charles Caviler is not the same kind as my neighbors Husky. I hope you are at least familiar enough with these breeds to see the difference. You can see the difference right? Not the same kind clearly.



Sorry but you are wrong about that which of course refutes the absolutism of the bible. Wild cats and domestic cats have breed successfully and not sterile. Two different species of sharks have interbred in none other than Australia you land down under. There are plants that remain fertile and salamanders. There even mules that are fertile. Well so much for the absolute interpretation of the bible. Always appreciate your changes my friend the keep me learning. In favor of evolution however.



The fact that the finches in a relatively short time could change sufficiently to adapt is amazing proof of how evolution works. Tortoises will not become finches but they can change with time. Iguanas also change generically with time but will not become finches. What any of the species will become will take far greater time that we as individual have on this planet. Adaptation is not evolution how true. Adaptation is the process which causes changes in the genetic code that leads to evolution. The ability to change is written in stone with no question about its meaning.

It is never to late to accept evolution my friend.

There has been a bit of an argument about dating humans again, difference among scientists of about 100,000 years. Nothing much, right? But you seem to be saying that dog breeds by design, or simple mutts, encompass evolutionary change?

 

[Bear Wild]

Here's the problem with that. Statistics show that some vaccines are successful in their application to dampen effects of disease. They have been scientifically developed. Tried and applied, stats taken. No such thing with the theory of...evolution. in fact there was some experimentation with humans and interbreeding with animals. Didn't work out. Of course, let's be honest...that last unknown ancestor just is not said to be around any more, is it? So no experiments can be had.

Do not mix technology with science. They clearly overlap but are still different. Technology may be scientifically based but does not answer the natural questions only tries to solve problems. Statistics show the similarity of species also when it come to relatedness. These different fields use the same statistical methods. We cannot always know for certain were and when a virus mutated into a new kind but we can make fairly good predictions even though the event happened. We can trace genetic mutations back to approximately the correct time and place as with the super HDL mutation that came from the Milan area even though we cannot identify its actual beginning. Your examples do not support your position. In fact you really only have a position of denial since you have no clear good explanation of the fossil evidence. When you have that which supports your claims then I will listen.

 

[Bear Wild]

There has been a bit of an argument about dating humans again, difference among scientists of about 100,000 years. Nothing much, right? But you seem to be saying that dog breeds by design, or simple mutts, encompass evolutionary change?

Of course there is but the fact we can even approximate that time is totally amazing with not other proposed theory that can even compete with it. Name one theory that has explained as much as evolution. There is none.

As for dog breed I am only saying that one kind of breed is not the same kind as another. That is clear from even simple observation that they are different - not the same kind. Coyotes are a different species from wolves and dogs and yet the can interbreed. They are different kinds yet can hybrids that are an entirely new kind.

Don't worry you are learning and if you keep an open mind you can understand just how amazing evolution is and enjoy it without a single risk to your belief in your god. It is a wonderful feeling for us theists and polytheist who treasure the knowledge that science has given us. It also reminds us just how interconnected we are with all life and that is a beautiful feeling too. Hang in there and keep probing into the theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do not mix technology with science. They clearly overlap but are still different. Technology may be scientifically based but does not answer the natural questions only tries to solve problems. Statistics show the similarity of species also when it come to relatedness. These different fields use the same statistical methods. We cannot always know for certain were and when a virus mutated into a new kind but we can make fairly good predictions even though the event happened. We can trace genetic mutations back to approximately the correct time and place as with the super HDL mutation that came from the Milan area even though we cannot identify its actual beginning. Your examples do not support your position. In fact you really only have a position of denial since you have no clear good explanation of the fossil evidence. When you have that which supports your claims then I will listen.

Again, I am not against science per se. But I no longer see the proof of Darwinian evolution often called science as presented by many. But that's me. And I realize I am in the minority, although I accepted the theory for a large part of my life because that's the way things went. And I believed what I was taught and read.
Until I began to question the validity and basis for it. I understand about cell structure. There are cells, there are molecules, there are atoms. It no longer means Darwinian evolution to me. It means these things are there. And by force, go along with the laws. Now since you believe in evolution, I shall stop there, because I realize on the basis of scientific reading (no real proof, or ability to experiment and prove the theory), there is a large difference in understanding of the observation of and application of this theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course there is but the fact we can even approximate that time is totally amazing with not other proposed theory that can even compete with it. Name one theory that has explained as much as evolution. There is none.

As for dog breed I am only saying that one kind of breed is not the same kind as another. That is clear from even simple observation that they are different - not the same kind. Coyotes are a different species from wolves and dogs and yet the can interbreed. They are different kinds yet can hybrids that are an entirely new kind.

Don't worry you are learning and if you keep an open mind you can understand just how amazing evolution is and enjoy it without a single risk to your belief in your god. It is a wonderful feeling for us theists and polytheist who treasure the knowledge that science has given us. It also reminds us just how interconnected we are with all life and that is a beautiful feeling too. Hang in there and keep probing into the theory.

I can go over the dating process and application methods. I will asap. So if I understand you correctly, you are a theist?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's strange to you, not to me. Especially since some of my close relatives are doctors and scientists. Among other close association I had with others professionally in the realm of science. The theory of evolution is not formulated by distinction or experimentation.

What do you mean by distinction. And by now, your claim that there are no experiments supporting evolution is just a case of denial in high gear.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again, I am not against science per se. But I no longer see the proof of Darwinian evolution often called science as presented by many. But that's me. And I realize I am in the minority, although I accepted the theory for a large part of my life because that's the way things went. And I believed what I was taught and read.
Until I began to question the validity and basis for it. I understand about cell structure. There are cells, there are molecules, there are atoms. It no longer means Darwinian evolution to me. It means these things are there. And by force, go along with the laws. Now since you believe in evolution, I shall stop there, because I realize on the basis of scientific reading (no real proof, or ability to experiment and prove the theory), there is a large difference in understanding of the observation of and application of this theory.

So far, I have seen nothing you have posted that is a challenge to the validity and basis of the theory.

For the nth time, theories are not proven. However, the evidence supports the theory.

You do realize that if scientists find some reason to reject the current theory, they are not going to replace it with the claims of your favorite version of belief? Any replacement would be on the basis of the evidence from observation and experimentation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Refute what I posted. You shoot the messenger but you cannot dismiss the photographs as faked unless you have counter evidence....do you? Are the photographs an accurate depiction of the reality? If not, then show us where the author of the pictures was in error. Give us pictures of the foramen magnum in this specimen so that we can see clearly why the pics were misleading. This is supposed to be one of the key features that show that the specimen was bi-pedal.....who is lying?

Whining about the source without identifying where the photographic evidence was in error, is a bit pathetic IMO.

Give us the real evidence. The responses here so far are just empty protests. Give us the real evidence that this Tuang skull is not what I have shown, regardless of the source of the pictures. Prove to us photographically that he is wrong.....

When the messenger is known to use poor quality evidence routinely, it is fitting that they should be challenged.

 

[Deeje]

When the messenger is known to use poor quality evidence routinely, it is fitting that they should be challenged.

So challenge him....provide evidence that what he said regarding the Tuang child and the photographic evidence he produced is false.....

I’m sick of the grumbling....put up or.....you know......

Prove him wrong......

 

[Deeje]

You know we all want to make you laugh. It makes the world a little softer.

Laughter is the best medicine....
We all need it right now.... I’ll take it where I can get it....

Sorry my wife's King Charles Caviler is not the same kind as my neighbors Husky. I hope you are at least familiar enough with these breeds to see the difference. You can see the difference right? Not the same kind clearly.

Did I suggest that canines were not canines or that felines were not felines? Dogs cannot become equines and felines will never become canines.....when evolution can produce and name those phantom “common ancestors”, then we might have something to discuss.....but so far they are all unidentified....and without them, evolution falls in a heap. The “common ancestor” is the branching point along the evolutionary tree, so without them there can be no branching. Without branches, the tree is limbless. It’s a telegraph pole.

Wild cats and domestic cats have breed successfully and not sterile. Two different species of sharks have interbred in none other than Australia you land down under. There are plants that remain fertile and salamanders. There even mules that are fertile. Well so much for the absolute interpretation of the bible. Always appreciate your changes my friend the keep me learning. In favor of evolution however.

There are exceptions to every rule, but generally speaking, creatures will reproduce only their own kind. They do not seek to mate with any other kind in their natural environment. Any who can interbreed are those more closely related. Breeds of dogs for example, like breeds of any other man made species, are not the product of natural selection, but of artificial selection to produce desired features. This is used to genetically modify a lot of different things, from plants to animals. But it is not without human intervention.

The fact that the finches in a relatively short time could change sufficiently to adapt is amazing proof of how evolution works.

No, it’s amazing how adaptation works. Adaptation does not in any way prove evolution. It can never take a species over into another “family” of creatures. Like Pakicetus could never morph into a whale. Calling a four legged furry creature the size of a dog, the ancestor of a whale, is one of the most preposterous fairy tales I have ever heard.

Tortoises will not become finches but they can change with time. Iguanas also change generically with time but will not become finches.

Did I ever suggest that they would? But Pakicetus became a whale.....so you just shot down your own argument.....

What any of the species will become will take far greater time that we as individual have on this planet. Adaptation is not evolution how true. Adaptation is the process which causes changes in the genetic code that leads to evolution. The ability to change is written in stone with no question about its meaning.

It can make minor changes in any single species. But it cannot change an amoeba into a dinosaur....no matter how many billions of years you throw at it.

A common example of evolution I encountered was the peppered moth, which changed color when the coal fires of Britain darkened the color of the trees where the moths gathered. The darker moths survived by being better camouflaged.....so the population gradually shifted to the darker color.....yet when the smog problem was remedied, the moths went back to their lighter color with the trees lighter bark.
The moths never became another species of moth.....they would never have become a different species. Adaptation is not evolution and cannot produce change at that level.....time would just produce more features as the moths adapted to new surroundings. They would remain moths forever.

Like dog breeds, some have short legs, and some have long legs, some have long fur, some have short hair, short muzzles, long muzzles.....but no matter what the difference is, all domestic dogs are of the same “family” and can interbreed. “Bitsers” we used to call those of dubious parentage....now we have the designer dogs.....with horrible health problems as humans purposely altered their appearance, but caused them harm in the process.

It is never to late to accept evolution my friend.

Nor is it ever too late to find and acknowledge the existence of an Intelligent Designer either my friend.....

 

[exchemist]

Not really, although I was wondering about facsimiles by artists renderings in reference to similitude of fossils thought to be hominids. Meantime, although the answer was muscular proposed attachment to the skeletal remains, the idea of evolution from chimp-like ancestors biologically to humans by evolution no longer makes sense to ME. It obviously does to you, and so that's where I am leaving it now, because I have learned a few things. One is that there is no proof of evolution. Only conjecture. Vaccines, at least, are proven to be effective or ineffective when applied.

More disingenuous rubbish. I see "proof" appears again, coupled with a false dichotomy between "proof" and "conjecture", when everyone has explained ad nauseam that science deals in neither but in evidence.

The First Law of Creationism: Never, ever, learn.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So challenge him....provide evidence that what he said regarding the Tuang child and the photographic evidence he produced is false.....

I’m sick of the grumbling....put up or.....you know......

Prove him wrong......

That was already done in the science journals (and continues to be).

It doesn't need to be re-done on an internet forum.

By the way, it's "Taung" Child.

Australopithecus and Kin | Learn Science at Scitable
Early Hominin Evolution: Discovery of Early Hominids
Australopithecus africanus
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26292728
New high-resolution computed tomography data of the Taung partial cranium and endocast and their bearing on metopism and hominin brain evolution
Welcome to the Open Research Scan Archive!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Refute what I posted. You shoot the messenger but you cannot dismiss the photographs as faked unless you have counter evidence....do you? Are the photographs an accurate depiction of the reality? If not, then show us where the author of the pictures was in error. Give us pictures of the foramen magnum in this specimen so that we can see clearly why the pics were misleading. This is supposed to be one of the key features that show that the specimen was bi-pedal.....who is lying?

Whining about the source without identifying where the photographic evidence was in error, is a bit pathetic IMO.

There's no need to refute what you posted because your source was so poor and outdated and doesn't reflect current research on the subject matter. Why bother refuting something like that?
Find a better source, if you want better information.
Sorry, but sources matter. Perhaps your poor choice of sources explains your misunderstandings about evolution.

Give us the real evidence. The responses here so far are just empty protests. Give us the real evidence that this Tuang skull is not what I have shown, regardless of the source of the pictures. Prove to us photographically that he is wrong.....

I gave you the real evidence in the post just before this one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is what I am seeing. About the theory of evolution. Or have seen since I began realizing the dark holes not of the sky, but in the theory of evolution. But not all will see or admit those dark holes exist. to be clear, in the theory of evolution.

Yeah, all those "dark holes" you can't articulate.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

we will all find out one day if we backed the winning horse, I guess....

Based on the evidence, I have no choice but to pre-emptively conclude that it so very much will not have been you. And since I don't even have a "horse" in this race, I believe that there is simply nothing to be lost or won on that "one day."

 

[Jose Fly]

That is what I am seeing. About the theory of evolution. Or have seen since I began realizing the dark holes not of the sky, but in the theory of evolution. But not all will see or admit those dark holes exist. to be clear, in the theory of evolution.

Meh....don't really care. Creationism/creationists are about as relevant as flat-earthism/flat-earthers now, so believe whatever you like.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is never to late to accept evolution my friend.

Huh? Is this your first time interacting with her? Surely you know she can't do that without facing some severe and extreme consequences.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So challenge him....provide evidence that what he said regarding the Tuang child and the photographic evidence he produced is false.....

I’m sick of the grumbling....put up or.....you know......

Prove him wrong......

It is you and your consistent (persistent?) use of poor quality sources that is being challenged. You must have misread my post.

If what you posted is so dead on correct, then you should be able to find numerous and far better resources than some non-scientist blogger with outdated, misleading information and empty claims.

You should take your own advice, but run with the "you know" part instead.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's strange to you, not to me. Especially since some of my close relatives are doctors and scientists. Among other close association I had with others professionally in the realm of science. The theory of evolution is not formulated by distinction or experimentation.

Clearly you have not discussed science with these family and associates.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Laughter is the best medicine....

Nor is it ever too late to find and acknowledge the existence of an Intelligent Designer either my friend.....

It is never too late to acknowledge that He gave us senses and intellect to learn about His creation either. Though I understand that some choose a doctrine that leaves them no choice but to do that.