ChatterBank1 min ago
Darwinism Finches And The Pepper Moth
87 Answers
Darwinism finches beaks and the Pepper moth are given as just two examples of evolution.
No, they changed minutely by natural selection to maximise their environment, and if they couldn't they would die out. But they remain moths and finches, the same KIND as the Bible says.
Animal species become extinct all the time because they CANNOT evolve to integrate with their new environment.
Is there just one example of one species changing into another?
Apart from me after a few pints.
No, they changed minutely by natural selection to maximise their environment, and if they couldn't they would die out. But they remain moths and finches, the same KIND as the Bible says.
Animal species become extinct all the time because they CANNOT evolve to integrate with their new environment.
Is there just one example of one species changing into another?
Apart from me after a few pints.
Answers
A few weeks ago, evolutionist
15:31 Sun 20th Sep 2015
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
// .it was more of a divergence of one canid type dividing into two.//
so that isnt evolution ?
// But they remain moths and finches, the same KIND as the Bible says. //
sorry moth is not a species - and Darwin was not discussing blblical "kinds" what ever they are ( or were )
and yes Darwins finches ARE different species
( Darwin's finches (also known as the Galápagos finches) are a group of about fifteen species of passerine birds. )
and evolved from a common ancestor
so that isnt evolution ?
// But they remain moths and finches, the same KIND as the Bible says. //
sorry moth is not a species - and Darwin was not discussing blblical "kinds" what ever they are ( or were )
and yes Darwins finches ARE different species
( Darwin's finches (also known as the Galápagos finches) are a group of about fifteen species of passerine birds. )
and evolved from a common ancestor
actually I think your example atalanta is not bad
the beeb article isnt exactly scientific but what the hell - the Bible isnt either and people believe both
in fact dog/wolf crosses are fertile so some say ( such as me ) they are the same species
but I have to say the wiki article
https:/
is very detailed and goes not mention the Book of Genesis at any point
the beeb article isnt exactly scientific but what the hell - the Bible isnt either and people believe both
in fact dog/wolf crosses are fertile so some say ( such as me ) they are the same species
but I have to say the wiki article
https:/
is very detailed and goes not mention the Book of Genesis at any point
PP strictly speaking, dogs didn't evolve from wolves because there are wolves left. The current idea is that there was some kind of common canid ancestor that diversified according to whatever niche was available to it.
I am not sure why Darwin et al are such a big bone of contention. Assuming that god created creation why could he not have used evolution, species subdivision and so on as a tool? after all, he/she had all the time in the universe for it to happen in. Personally I don't see evolution as an argument one way or the other.
I am not sure why Darwin et al are such a big bone of contention. Assuming that god created creation why could he not have used evolution, species subdivision and so on as a tool? after all, he/she had all the time in the universe for it to happen in. Personally I don't see evolution as an argument one way or the other.
// PP strictly speaking, dogs didn't evolve from wolves because there are wolves left.//
then you have illustrated Theland's question
//Is there just one example of one species into another? //
your answer is "no by definition"
I have no doubt australopithecus and man had a common ancestor
but one didnt change into the other
and that fact doesnt have any value in deciding the validity of Darwin's ideas
then you have illustrated Theland's question
//Is there just one example of one species into another? //
your answer is "no by definition"
I have no doubt australopithecus and man had a common ancestor
but one didnt change into the other
and that fact doesnt have any value in deciding the validity of Darwin's ideas
copy here - not cheap - ( uni textbook )
Amazon.co.uk User Recommendation
and yes you should not prejudge a book
Amazon.co.uk User Recommendation
and yes you should not prejudge a book
Just looked him up on YouTube. Very patronising, and did not throw out anything to tittilate my curiosity. He is evasive, and did not even address the most basic questions.
Origin of the universe, abiogenesis, an example of cross speciation, an example of genetic mutation being beneficial, the mystery of the information in the cell.
No, he must have written scientific papers for other like minded scientists.
Too many gaps and assumptions.
He even thought supporters of I.D. were all young earth fundamental Christians.
He never even had the courtesy to address the evidence.
I'm sorry he passed away, because now he knows the truth.
Origin of the universe, abiogenesis, an example of cross speciation, an example of genetic mutation being beneficial, the mystery of the information in the cell.
No, he must have written scientific papers for other like minded scientists.
Too many gaps and assumptions.
He even thought supporters of I.D. were all young earth fundamental Christians.
He never even had the courtesy to address the evidence.
I'm sorry he passed away, because now he knows the truth.
@woofgang
//PP strictly speaking, dogs didn't evolve from wolves because there are wolves left.//
No. Incorrect inference.
The fact that wolves still exists proves that their niche in nature still exists.
The fact that they are less than invisible to hunters with telescopic sights proves to me that they are not intelligently designed.
The fact that a progenitor species still exists does not preclude evolution from having occurred. As you have observed, dogs and wolves are capable of producing fertile offspring; evidence that they are merely varieties or subspecies of wolf. Dogs display puppyish behaviour and are thus more suitable for cohabiting with us but might struggle to establish themselves in a fully wild wolfpack.
I read somewhere that Galapagos finch varieties can be crossbred* - they just choose not to and are sufficiently divergent in appearance that their mate-choice process rarely makes mistakes.
* artificial insemination was tried but the fertilised eggs were destroyed before full term.
Given millenia and sufficient mutations, eventually the DNA strands will fail to zip together properly and full species separation will have occurred. You get new species from old ones but the old ones continue to exist. Niche separation usually ensures each takes their geographical place, they avoid competition and avoid wiping each other out. Only humans are that competitive and careless.
//PP strictly speaking, dogs didn't evolve from wolves because there are wolves left.//
No. Incorrect inference.
The fact that wolves still exists proves that their niche in nature still exists.
The fact that they are less than invisible to hunters with telescopic sights proves to me that they are not intelligently designed.
The fact that a progenitor species still exists does not preclude evolution from having occurred. As you have observed, dogs and wolves are capable of producing fertile offspring; evidence that they are merely varieties or subspecies of wolf. Dogs display puppyish behaviour and are thus more suitable for cohabiting with us but might struggle to establish themselves in a fully wild wolfpack.
I read somewhere that Galapagos finch varieties can be crossbred* - they just choose not to and are sufficiently divergent in appearance that their mate-choice process rarely makes mistakes.
* artificial insemination was tried but the fertilised eggs were destroyed before full term.
Given millenia and sufficient mutations, eventually the DNA strands will fail to zip together properly and full species separation will have occurred. You get new species from old ones but the old ones continue to exist. Niche separation usually ensures each takes their geographical place, they avoid competition and avoid wiping each other out. Only humans are that competitive and careless.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.