- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Birds are the only surviving dinosaurs
Posted on 5/30/22 at 2:43 am to Korkstand
Posted on 5/30/22 at 2:43 am to Korkstand
[quote]Correct, and if that is ever observed it would fly in the face of evolution[/quote
Please explain how one species evolves into another.
I assume you will say through genetic mutation.
Mutations have been observed, but they have never been observed to lead to a new species.
Please explain how one species evolves into another.
I assume you will say through genetic mutation.
Mutations have been observed, but they have never been observed to lead to a new species.
1
Posted on 5/30/22 at 2:50 am to Boo Krewe
quote:I've never seen a t rex walk to compare it to a chicken.
watch a chicken walk. you can see that t rex is ancester of the bird
Posted on 5/30/22 at 2:51 am to Guntoter1
quote:Pick two organisms from the same lineage a sufficient number of generations removed such that the two examples would qualify as different species. It might be 10 thousand generations, or it might be 10 million.
Please explain how one species evolves into another.
Two organisms of the same species will never produce an organism of a different species. Two cows will never make a horse. That would be creation magic.
Whoever told you that evolution states or implies that a species should give birth to another species is an idiot or a liar or both. You should investigate that and whatever the case never listen to anything that person has to say.
Posted on 5/30/22 at 2:52 am to Korkstand
The geneticist that I have read, say that genetic mutation can not explain major changes in body forms.
I admit that a redfish may be able to become a speckled trout through selective breeding along with some mutations but this will NEVER lead to a redfish becoming a mammal. The genetic magic needed to bring this about is not possible no matter how much time you have
I admit that a redfish may be able to become a speckled trout through selective breeding along with some mutations but this will NEVER lead to a redfish becoming a mammal. The genetic magic needed to bring this about is not possible no matter how much time you have
Posted on 5/30/22 at 2:54 am to Korkstand
quote:
oever told you that evolution states or implies that a species should give birth to another species is an idiot or a liar or both. You should investigate that and whatever the case never listen to anything that person has to say.
No no no. You misunderstand me.
I am not being clear. Sorry
Please explain how one species evolves into another
Posted on 5/30/22 at 3:04 am to Guntoter1
quote:I understand that some people get trapped into only reading things which confirm their preconceptions. I encourage you to look and think outside that box.
The geneticist that I have read, say that genetic mutation can not explain major changes in body forms.
quote:Correct, it is exceedingly unlikely if not impossible to ever produce an animal similar to modern day mammals from a modern day fish. Their most recent common ancestor lived hundreds of millions of years ago, and likely resembled neither modern mammals nor modern fish.
I admit that a redfish may be able to become a speckled trout through selective breeding along with some mutations but this will NEVER lead to a redfish becoming a mammal.
I fail to see how this discredits evolution.
quote:Right, your specific "change of kinds" type of example is likely impossible. That's why those types of examples are presented by the idiots/liars who fail to understand evolution or for whom the truth would destroy their worldview.
The genetic magic needed to bring this about is not possible no matter how much time you have
Posted on 5/30/22 at 3:08 am to Korkstand
quote:
Pick two organisms from the same lineage a sufficient number of generations removed such that the two examples would qualify as different species. It might be 10 thousand generations, or it might be 10 million.
It easy to discredit the creationist because their explanations have no observable proof.
Please give me some observable proof of evolution.
Reproduction (ontagany recapitulates philogony) is not evolution. It is strong circumstantial evidence but it is not proof of evolution as described by Darwin. I admit that new species have appeared throughout history. But the mechanism producing them is not classical evolution in my opinion.
Posted on 5/30/22 at 3:10 am to Guntoter1
quote:Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Speciation is not a distinct event. It is the accumulation of many generations worth of differences. Even if we could witness millions of generations, we could not pick a point to say that is where a new species arose. It does not work that way, because every organism is extremely similar to its recent ancestors.
Please explain how one species evolves into another
Posted on 5/30/22 at 3:16 am to Guntoter1
quote:Have you not observed the fact that children are similar, physically and genetically, to their parents, and yet very obviously different?
Please give me some observable proof of evolution.
quote:Then what is your opinion?
I admit that new species have appeared throughout history. But the mechanism producing them is not classical evolution in my opinion.
The physical similarities and differences within and across species align with the genetic similarities and differences within and across species. Surely you are not arguing that DNA has no relation to species, or that traits are not passed from parent to offspring, are you?
Posted on 5/30/22 at 3:18 am to Korkstand
quote:
orrect, it is exceedingly unlikely if not impossible to ever produce an animal similar to modern day mammals from a modern day fish. Their most recent common ancestor lived hundreds of millions of years ago, and likely resembled neither modern mammals nor modern fish.
Yes yes. If this is the modern understanding of evolution then science is making progress in this area in my opinion.
I have come to suspect that evolution is a one way street. Meaning that once certain advances have been made then a course is set and is not reversible or even drasticly changable.
Posted on 5/30/22 at 3:26 am to Korkstand
quote:
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Speciation is not a distinct event. It is the accumulation of many generations worth of differences. Even if we could witness millions of generations, we could not pick a point to say that is where a new species arose. It does not work that way, because every organism is extremely similar to its recent ancestors.
Thank you,
This has been largely accepted as incorrect . Slow gradual change is not even observed in the fossil record. Thus the emergence of the theory of punctuated equilibria.
I do not pretend to know how life has evolved but the truth is modern biologist don’t know either. That’s all I am saying. These die hard evolutionist are not being honest with themselves just as the fundamentalist refuses to accept certain things.
Posted on 5/30/22 at 3:27 am to Guntoter1
quote:That has been the understanding for more than a century.
Yes yes. If this is the modern understanding of evolution then science is making progress in this area in my opinion.
quote:Well, yes, there is no such thing as "devolving". There is no goal or final form to march toward, though. Mutation is random, but populations are shaped by the environment.
I have come to suspect that evolution is a one way street.
quote:Orcas and whales used to have legs. They left the sea, and then returned. Legs evolved, then they evolved into fins.
Meaning that once certain advances have been made then a course is set and is not reversible or even drasticly changable.
Posted on 5/30/22 at 3:36 am to Guntoter1
quote:I think you misunderstand.
This has been largely accepted as incorrect .
quote:Fossilization is an exceedingly rare event. For many species we have only ever found one example, and rarely is it a full skeleton. That said, we have only found a relative handful of evolutionarily recent human ancestors, yet even with that small sample we do see gradual change.
Slow gradual change is not even observed in the fossil record.
quote:This "extension" of the theory may have occurred in some lineages and not in others. At its root, all it means is that when a form or species is well-adapted to its environment, populations tend to grow more quickly and more fossilizations are likely to occur. So we are more likely to find these fossils, and less likely to find "intermediate" species.
Thus the emergence of the theory of punctuated equilibria.
quote:We may not know how it began, but we absolutely know how life evolves.
I do not pretend to know how life has evolved but the truth is modern biologist don’t know either. That’s all I am saying.
Posted on 5/30/22 at 3:36 am to Korkstand
quote:
quote: Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Speciation is not a distinct event. It is the accumulation of many generations worth of differences. Even if we could witness millions of generations, we could not pick a point to say that is where a new species arose. It does not work that way, because every organism is extre quote:
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Speciation is not a distinct event. It is the accumulation of many generations worth of differences. Even if we could witness millions of generations, we could not pick a point to say that is where a new species arose. It does not work that way, because every organism is extremely similar to its recent ancestors.
Thank you,
This has been largely accepted as incorrect . Slow gradual change is not even observed in the fossil record. Thus the emergence of the theory of punctuated equilibria.
I do not pretend to know how life has evolved but the truth is modern biologist don’t know either. That’s all I am saying. These die hard evolutionist are not being honest with themselves just as the fundamentalist refuses to accept certain things. mely similar to its recent ancestors.
Thank you,
This has been largely accepted as incorrect . Slow gradual change is not even observed in the fossil record. Thus the emergence of the theory of punctuated equilibria. I do not pretend to know how life has evolved but the truth is modern biologist don’t know either. That’s all I am saying. These die hard evolutionist are not being honest with themselves just as the fundamentalist refuses to accept certain things.
Posted on 5/30/22 at 3:57 am to Korkstand
quote:
We may not know how it began, but we absolutely know how life evolves
I don’t think we do.
I agree that it happened but positive mutations let’s say the evolution of a wing from an arm.
Tertiaries , primaries, down. All these feathers perfectly fine tuned for lift and drag through chance mutations?
You would need a million bad mutations for every good mutation to get the modern wing of an eagle.
I don’t accept that this is mathematicly possible
Posted on 5/30/22 at 4:30 am to cbree88
Snakes and lizards still shite frick and breach through the same hole so imma say they've got their hat well in the ring
Posted on 5/30/22 at 6:42 am to Xanthus
quote:
Dang, said tonight to a friend that chickens are what remains of dinosaurs. Friend raises chickens for eggs.
Does this make your friend a rural John Hammond?
Posted on 5/30/22 at 7:01 am to Ryan3232
quote:
Gators and crocs beg to differ
hmmm
Posted on 5/30/22 at 7:22 am to mdomingue
Shocking that someone named guntoter doesn’t believe in evolution.
Muh rights to have AR-15s and believe dinosaurs aren’t real.
Muh rights to have AR-15s and believe dinosaurs aren’t real.
Posted on 5/30/22 at 7:26 am to cbree88
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News