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!
There is universal value in breaking pattern and diverting attention (or asserting attention). Stripes and spots are useful to many varying groups of animals and even among plants at getting this job accomplished.
My claim is that birds remain birds. That is my claim. I was thinking of chromosomes but really as you say there is no need for me at least to go into that. It would be basically futile as if to show that birds themselves evolved from dinosaurs, if I understand the theory correctly. So let me reiterate, since things can get lost in the translation, as they say. By the way, thank you for delineating what you think my claim is. So! I believe that birds remain birds. They are not evolving to something beyond being a bird. And -- that's where I stop. Birds remain birds, whether they can interbreed or not. I have read that 10% of the bird population can interbreed, 90% cannot. If I remember correctly. Nevertheless -- those beautiful birds from Australia you pointed out are truly beautiful, thank you for bringing that out. Just so I'm not misunderstood again -- my claim is that birds remain birds. I go no further than that now.
Size, mating signals, color, calls, genotypes, range, seasonality, trophic level, climatic adaptation, etc., etc., etc. Golly gee, there sure are a lot of differences in things that are the same things always and forever and ever and never changing. You'd almost think that the environment was selecting for all that adaptive variation.
So that apparent eye stripe in the photo is the result of contour shading and light and isn't really there as a pigmented stripe. Perhaps the oscillating appearance and disappearance resulting from head posture offers an advantage of a stripe without an actual stripe.
Structural color is fairly common in birds. This seems to be a variation of that theme to me.
OK, I understand. Although I don't see why you consider the claim as nonsense, i.e., that birds remain birds. But right now that is what I have found to be expected from certain ones. On the subject that a small percentage of birds now known can interbreed, let me substantiate that for you: "
It would be important in being consistent in one's thinking and being able to explain it without rancor. Rationally.
OK, I understand. Although I don't see why you consider the claim as nonsense, i.e., that birds remain birds. But right now that is what I have found to be expected from certain ones. On the subject that a small percentage of birds now known can interbreed, let me substantiate that for you: "
Many birds occasionally mate with members of other bird species, producing hybrid offspring,” said Irby J. Lovette, director of the Fuller Evolutionary Biology Program at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
In fact, Dr. Lovette said, about 10 percent of the world’s 10,000 bird species are known to have bred with another species at least once, either in the wild or in captivity."
Hope that helps.
Avian Affairs (Published 2013)
Many birds mate with members of other bird species, experts say, sometimes producing hybrid offspring.www.nytimes.com
OK, I understand. Although I don't see why you consider the claim as nonsense, i.e., that birds remain birds. But right now that is what I have found to be expected from certain ones. On the subject that a small percentage of birds now known can interbreed, let me substantiate that for you: "
Many birds occasionally mate with members of other bird species, producing hybrid offspring,” said Irby J. Lovette, director of the Fuller Evolutionary Biology Program at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
In fact, Dr. Lovette said, about 10 percent of the world’s 10,000 bird species are known to have bred with another species at least once, either in the wild or in captivity."
Hope that helps.
Avian Affairs (Published 2013)
Many birds mate with members of other bird species, experts say, sometimes producing hybrid offspring.
This has nothing to do with being bitter as far as I am concerned. But from my experience here so far many people are simply absolutely more than reluctant to explain how they relegate belief in God (claiming they belong to a religion linked to the Bible) and also believing in the theory of evolution. What I have found is that they call the Bible a book of myths yet go to church and claim to believe in God and get upset when asked to explain how that works.
That would be one reason, but it seems there may be an even more basic reason: incompatibility of the respective strands of “junk” DNA: Biologists Just Got Closer to The DNA Secrets That Stop Species From Interbreeding
OK, I didn't realize that.
Indeed. YT has had this explained before but trollishly pretends that is not the case, in order to get people to jump through yet more hoops restating it. Well ballocks to that.
Very interesting. The fact that noncoding DNA changes much more quickly than coding DNA explains how new species can form, even while they are very similar in their coding DNA. Mutations in noncoding DNA are almost always benign. Those parts of genomes are not highly preserved by natural selection.
Not true. I have not been dishonest about this. You may think so, but that is your right to believe what you want. If I saw an explanation that shows evolution is absolutely true without doubt in conjunction as well with what their religious belief claims linkage between the Bible and evolution, I'd believe it. But there is no absolute verification of differences among plant and animal life having evolved. And that's where I leave it now.
Furthermore, I don't know if you're an atheist, but doesn't really matter. Because I wonder also as to how some people believe they can talk to dead persons and how they figure God or nature fits in with any of this, if you do.