Originally posted by longken the wolves and dogs are all still canines..just one of them happens to be tamed and selectively bred by man.
species: A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.
So when you made a claim about 'species' earlier in the thread, you were making your own made up definition? Interesting. You are starting to sound like a creationist not someone who really wants to know anything about evolution.
Originally posted by longken take the genetic pool of ten dogs stuck together. the different offspring and adaptations and uniqueness of each: genetic potential.
Given how mutations can essentially change the DNA without limitations this does not impose any restrictions, now does it?
Originally posted by longken the wolves and dogs are all still canines..just one of them happens to be tamed and selectively bred by man.
species: A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.
I must also note that 'canine' is not recognised as a species name in any scientific circles, nor can all canines interbreed.
So, can we take it that when you said
[quote]adaptation hasnt changed any species to another or so i have seen.[/b]
you were not referring to the usual scientific meaning of the word 'species'?
If so, I think you would have been wise to say so at the time instead waiting for a challenge and causing confusion by using a non-standard definition without stating the definition.
Originally posted by longken The evolutionary theory also covers the beginning of the world..aka the big bang theory.
It has been pointed out already the absurdity of this statement but if i reinforce it, hopefully you may learn something.
The Theory of Evolution by natural selection as proposed by Charles Darwin is an explanation as to the 'diversification of life' on this planet. The humongous evidence for this process can be found in any good book store or local library.
The Big Bang model, or theory, is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe. This has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.
Originally posted by longken do to the proof everywhere for adaptation, yes. adaptation hasnt changed any species to another or so i have seen.
"Species" is a human concept framed to be used with living animals. Trying to apply that concept to previous forms of living beings do not bring good result.
Dawkins explains it very well in the Greatest Show on Earth, which is not his best work, I must say.
Originally posted by Eladar I thought it was a given that under the theory of evolution life began in the ooze.
The theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life, nor is the origin of life relevant for the validity of the theory of evolution. Biological evolution is a specific case of a more general algorithm that also appears in computer science, economics, language, and more.
Originally posted by longken well sorry if i cant get anything right. im playing in a 25+ yr old world when im 14 lol 🙂
Well then don't make claims about something you don't yet understand. Simply take the time to learn. If you are interested in learning, there are always people here ready to answer even the most ridiculous questions. If you don't believe what you are told, then go ahead and question it and ask for more detail or explanations for why something doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by twhitehead Well then don't make claims about something you don't yet understand. Simply take the time to learn. If you are interested in learning, there are always people here ready to answer even the most ridiculous questions. If you don't believe what you are told, then go ahead and question it and ask for more detail or explanations for why something doesn't make sense.
okay i will 🙂 u guys should continue arguing(debating) 🙂 its my favorite way to learn lol 🙂
Originally posted by Eladar To tell you the truth, I think that macro evolution as a result of natural micro evolutions is simply a religious belief rooted in those who ascribe to the religion that says we must reject God as an explanation.
Nonsense. Darwin was a Christian, and so am I. Both of us believe(d) that evolution is a true theory*; neither of us believe(d) that it is incompatible with the existence of God.
Richard
*Anyone now piping up with "but it's only a theory" shall be smacked back into science terminology camp and not let out until he knows what the word "theory" means.
Originally posted by sonhouse Never would anyone but a creationist say that evolution theorists say it is the natural explanation of life.
Well... a hardline creationist and a Dawkinsite. Those have more in common with one another than either has with both real scientists and real Christians.
Originally posted by longken Is there valid proof for evolution? What about Creationism? *Is wondering what will come up here concerning these questions*
-Long-
Many diseases evolve a resistance to antibiotics. Selective breeding is good evidence that species evolve. Dogs evolved from wolves and there were selective breeding experiments using foxes by the Soviets that are very convincing.
Just because we have not witnessed a change in species during our lifetimes does not mean it does not happen. Different species are still sometimes similar enough to cross breed. Google "cross species hybrids" and you will find convincing evidence of evolution. Even different species with a different number of chromosomes can crossbreed, although the result is often a sterile hybrid. The donkey/horse cross to a mule is a good example of this. I believe the mule has a different number of chromosomes than both parents.
Does all of this meet your criteria for "valid proof"?
Originally posted by Shallow Blue Well... a hardline creationist and a Dawkinsite. Those have more in common with one another than either has with both real scientists and real Christians.
Richard
What is a Dawkinsite? Is Richard Dawkins one? Do you know anyone who is one?
Is there valid proof for evolution?
30 Jul '11 08:21
Back to Top