Jay84 Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 Mule? Zorse? Pretty sure a fox shares genetic ties to cats and dogs. As what Steve has said, but where both survive they become variations in the same family. That's why there are so many sprcies of shark, dog, cat etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 Davey I have listened with interest to a lot of stuff you have posted on here, its quite interesting, but I think you have totally misunderstood what evolution is. Its not about species cross breeding, or in their lifetime changing shape or form. Its about how life adapts to its environment - as I mentioned if you look at invasive species its a great way to properly understand how it works as it happens at a much accelerated rate. I remember watching something about Cane Toads in Australia, introduced there about 100 years ago but with a max lifespan of something like 10 years that ten generations, anyway enough time for selective evolution to happen vs. the same animal that are still in their environment of origin. It showed how they are even in that short time diverging in their physical aspects, Australian ones are faster and stronger based on their legs being significantly longer on average than those back in their native habitat, where they have begun to adapt to wider open spaces of Australia vs the confined spaces of their origin. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock_Steady Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) 18 hours ago, davey_83 said: If my brother went to live in Jamaica from a young age and after 20yrs yeah sure he would look and act totally different to had he lived in the UK, but he wouldn't show signs of changing into another species. Not him or any generations there after, not possible and not proof of this either forward or back - Unless faked................. Its all just an idea. A person that see's evolution as fact and an on-going process (even though nothing today has a half evolved eye or lung) is a ok, nothing against it. Just not belief I have and examples of known forgery (not mistakes) in this area further pushes one away. But Davey, Jamaicans are not another species. Plus there are a fair few white Jamaicans too if your mention of "species" is in reference to the stereo-typical view that Jamaicans have to be black. Edited April 10, 2018 by Rock_Steady 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 They even have a bob sleigh team. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey_83 Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) Yes that's the point circumstance doesn't change any animal into a different species, nothing does. Again no issues with microevolution, however not macro. Dawkins states there would have been cross breeding with early man, which IS part of evolution. Evolution presents all land and air creatures ultimately came from the waters. So over time one creature would turn into another completely different. No issue with all the different types of dogs, cats or sharks, but I call bs to one species overtime time turning into something else. All man has done is find similarities in different animals and figured they are related from yesteryear. We have zero evidence for the types of pond bacteria that would have been seen on earth billions of years ago, that they claim started life on earth. Science has faked elements of evolution and been caught out, you only know something is fake until its found out. Your knowledge of the evolution idea could very well be the same. Its not a faith position, evolution is presented factually with evidence and we've seen this faked before. Why fake truth? Edited April 10, 2018 by davey_83 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock_Steady Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) i think the word "fake" is being used out of context here. Fake suggests that "they" who ever they are, know the truth but haven't told us. That what they have done is given us a turd and told us it's a mars bar. To deceive us to their own ends. To which i can't see how that may be in their favour. And i don't think it's because scientists are on a quest to discredit religion. I don't believe that's the case. I think it's more of a case of, " this is what we think is true based on what we know at the moment" then, of course, what usually happens is, there's a discovery that blows that out of the water and then is replaced by the new theory, based on what we know at that time. Basically we get updated as the scientific community does. Edited April 10, 2018 by Rock_Steady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevoD Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 Don't tad poles grow legs then leave the water? What's the difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock_Steady Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 "We have zero evidence for the types of pond bacteria that would have been seen on earth billions of years ago, that they claim started life on earth. Science has faked elements of evolution and been caught out," The tone of this smacks a bit of " Ha! you tried to fool us but you got busted!!" No,... no, i really don't think so. So, where did you read, hear or study at great length and detail that gave you the credibility to casually make such statements that leads you to the said conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 They've always done that. I think Davey's issue is the lack of evidence to the speculation we lost our gills. His argument could also be that if our appendix has no function, why haven't we evolved to a point where we are no longer born with them. I personally like evolution, despite the lack of x men running around. Survival of the best equipped to deal with an environment works for me. The idea that an animal was born as a genetic defect that found a comfortable environment is quite cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 Out of curiosity, what is the ET consensus? I don't mean; do you believe rednecks have been probed, but do you think in the vastness of space we are the only planet to sustain life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock_Steady Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 O.k. I'll take that on board. I have misunderstood davey's issue. In that case, i apologise to davey and i'll leave it at that. davey, i apologise. i also apologise if my manner is somewhat, in ya face in my posts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock_Steady Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Jay84 said: Out of curiosity, what is the ET consensus? I don't mean; do you believe rednecks have been probed, but do you think in the vastness of space we are the only planet to sustain life? In a nutshell, no, we are not the only planet to sustain life IMO. That's just a basis on the law of probability and a smattering of other things. Not because i have evidence before anyone chimes in with that. Edited April 10, 2018 by Rock_Steady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 Open to all really. It's another question that can't physically be proven, so I imagine Davey believes we're alone. I personally don't, big assed solar system, each star is a sun, our sun has 9 planets, mathematically we can't bee the only planet with lucky cosmic parking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 3 hours ago, Rock_Steady said: "We have zero evidence for the types of pond bacteria that would have been seen on earth billions of years ago, that they claim started life on earth. Science has faked elements of evolution and been caught out," The tone of this smacks a bit of " Ha! you tried to fool us but you got busted!!" No,... no, i really don't think so. So, where did you read, hear or study at great length and detail that gave you the credibility to casually make such statements that leads you to the said conclusion. He didn’t. He’s talking nonsense, as there’s a ton of evidence regarding life on this planet from millennia ago. However, it’s easy to sit there with fingers in ears pretending that a man in the cloud invented everything because you’re too dim to actually comprehend the science involved. But that’s okay, if it makes him happy then that’s fine. Thankfully there’s millions of human beings who aren’t content to sit in the stone ages and actually want to advance. The thought that someone’s best guess two thousand years ago could actually turn out to be the complete truth is laughable, tbh. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey_83 Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 5 hours ago, Rock_Steady said: i think the word "fake" is being used out of context here. Fake suggests that "they" who ever they are, know the truth but haven't told us. That what they have done is given us a turd and told us it's a mars bar. To deceive us to their own ends. To which i can't see how that may be in their favour. And i don't think it's because scientists are on a quest to discredit religion. I don't believe that's the case. I think it's more of a case of, " this is what we think is true based on what we know at the moment" then, of course, what usually happens is, there's a discovery that blows that out of the water and then is replaced by the new theory, based on what we know at that time. Basically we get updated as the scientific community does. Incorrect, some of history has tried to pushed as facts knowing it's forgery by its finders. Again why fake truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey_83 Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 4 hours ago, Jay84 said: Open to all really. It's another question that can't physically be proven, so I imagine Davey believes we're alone. I personally don't, big assed solar system, each star is a sun, our sun has 9 planets, mathematically we can't bee the only planet with lucky cosmic parking. I do believe we are alone, this is what puzzles scientist as surely there must be life out there. Hello............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey_83 Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 5 hours ago, StevoD said: Don't tad poles grow legs then leave the water? What's the difference Because they then return to the water to lay eggs, ie its on a loop. Evolution states the loop is then broken, out of water and stays out of water going forward slight difference if I see it correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 Why do older skeletons of humans have smaller skull cavities? Arched backs? Why are humans now much taller on average than 200 years ago? Go into an old cottage built in the 1800s and why do you think the doorways are so low? Animals evolve based on their surroundings and their behaviour, the evidence (of which is not fake) is like this in a short period of time relatively small in the grand scheme of things, but over tens of thousands, or even millions of years, small changes become substantial ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 If the world even is that old . I've watched the Big Bang Theory and yes I can see some scientists fudging results, but mainly to get credit or surpass a rival who is also close to publication rather than dupe the world. But it's never one scientist finding 1 bit of evidence, it's loads of them. Speaking of loops, we have moved our talk from flat earth to evolution, but the loss are the same. Being challenged to think is never a bad thing though, and things are staying civil. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 In fairness I think tadpoles to frogs is a bad example as is caterpillar to butterfly, both of those are metamorphosis rather than the change in DNA to eventually create a new species. Do you say that human size and shape had been a constant Davey? Because there is evidence to the contrary as Coldel had pointed out. And If you acknowledge that we have changed, what would you call that change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey_83 Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) No doubt and the average height of a Swede today is very different to a Korean - that's not evolution. What I see are changes in our diet, culture, life style, medicine over generations. Again scientific we are evolving into another species so who knows right. Edited April 10, 2018 by davey_83 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey_83 Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 35 minutes ago, coldel said: Why do older skeletons of humans have smaller skull cavities? Arched backs? Why are humans now much taller on average than 200 years ago? Go into an old cottage built in the 1800s and why do you think the doorways are so low? Animals evolve based on their surroundings and their behaviour, the evidence (of which is not fake) is like this in a short period of time relatively small in the grand scheme of things, but over tens of thousands, or even millions of years, small changes become substantial ones. Adding time to the mix doesn't make the impossible, possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey_83 Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 5 hours ago, Rock_Steady said: "We have zero evidence for the types of pond bacteria that would have been seen on earth billions of years ago, that they claim started life on earth. Science has faked elements of evolution and been caught out," The tone of this smacks a bit of " Ha! you tried to fool us but you got busted!!" No,... no, i really don't think so. So, where did you read, hear or study at great length and detail that gave you the credibility to casually make such statements that leads you to the said conclusion. Enlighten me with the evidence for how life started? Pick a card, it'll make guessing easier. https://amp.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html #unsure so we'll make it up. @Ekona what evidence satisfies you in your beliefs of scientifically how life began? Surely this is level 1 of evolution....... I genuinely see nowt more than guess work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 1 hour ago, davey_83 said: Adding time to the mix doesn't make the impossible, possible Prove it is impossible then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 There's that loop again. Prove the world is flat, prove it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts