Originally posted by ushomefree
Your statement is easy to conceptualize, but it isn't true. Human beings, for example, a billion years from now--or whatever time scale (or environmental conditions)--will not develop feathers or gills; information needed to develop such attributes are absent from the human genome (the total sum of DNA). Don't you understand that?!
Then we will die out. Those who can adapt will, and all other will go extinct.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-Animals and plants--at the rate of 50,000 a year--become extinct because of:
(1) human intervention,
(2) lose of habitat, or
(3) lack of consumables.
But there have been several mass extinctions in the remote past. If animals are not capable of evolving into new species, why are there animals still alive on the Earth? It seems that, if you are right, then after the first mass extinction, life should have died out.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-Animals and plants--at the rate of 50,000 a year--become extinct because of:
(1) human intervention,
(2) lose of habitat, or
(3) lack of consumables.
if animals couldnt adapt and evolve, all life would have been destroyed when the meteor hit earth, during the i believe the cambrian era. it blotted out the sun and caused almost all life to die. now if that doesnt mean the animals evolved to cope with it, then how would u explain it?
Originally posted by chickenlover98-
if animals couldnt adapt and evolve, all life would have been destroyed when the meteor hit earth, during the i believe the cambrian era. it blotted out the sun and caused almost all life to die. now if that doesnt mean the animals evolved to cope with it, then how would u explain it?
Caution, I never stated that organisms lack the ability to evolve; organisms do evolve, but not in Darwinian fashion. The fossil record and molecular biology--some would even argue astronomy--support this fact. Organisms do evolve, but only in "variation." This, of course, is dependent of the environment itself (and conditions therein). On the flip side, if the environment undergoes changes too rapidly, organisms--even human beings--will certainly die off. Enlight of "cyclic" global climate change, for example, polar bears have certainly seen better days.
The Cambrian period has nothing to do with meteorites impacting planet Earth. The Cambrian period--also known as the Cambrian "explosion"--dating about 550 million years--reveals all major phyla in full form (even soft-bodied organisms like jelly-fish). Prior to the Cambrian period, all we see are (for the most part) bacteria. The fossil record reveals almost nothing until the Cambrian period--hence the term, Cambrian "explosion." Let me explain.
Pretend you are walking down a football field; you pass the 10, 20, 30 yard line, and all you see are various forms of bacteria. Nothing major, but you keep walking... 40, 50, 60 and so on. When you walk upon the 20 yard line (on the opposite side of the football field), you embark on an explosion of phyla--the basic forms of life--which include mammals and reptiles! All at once!!
Significance?
Well... the Cambrian period turns Darwin's Tree of Life upside down. The Cambrian period shows life forms arising abruptly, not progressively in Darwinian fashion. It is common for "most"--if not all--Darwinists to ignore the Cambrian period (and for good reason).
Rather than wasting my time responding to your argumentum ad ignoratiam and other logical and scientific fallacies, from now on I'm simply going post links to responses to them or synonymous claims. 313
Claim: Species may undergo minor changes, but the range of variation is limited to variation within kinds.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html
Claim: No new phyla, orders, or classes have been observed appearing. Macroevolution remains unobserved.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_2.html
Claim: Complex life forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestral fossils.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
In the Cambrian explosion, all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html
Originally posted by ushomefree
Pretend you are walking down a football field; you pass the 10, 20, 30 yard line, and all you see are various forms of bacteria. Nothing major, but you keep walking... 40, 50, 60 and so on. When you walk upon the 20 yard line (on the opposite side of the football field), you embark on an explosion of phyla--the basic forms of life--which include mammals and reptiles! All at once!!Significance?
Environment changes, remember?
Originally posted by ushomefree
Caution, I never stated that organisms lack the ability to evolve; organisms do evolve, but not in Darwinian fashion. The fossil record and molecular biology--some would even argue astronomy--support this fact. Organisms do evolve, but only in "variation." This, of course, is dependent of the environment itself (and conditions therein). On the flip side, if the environment undergoes changes too rapidly, organisms--even human beings--will certainly die off. Enlight of "cyclic" global climate change, for example, polar bears have certainly seen better days.The Cambrian period has nothing to do with meteorites impacting planet Earth. The Cambrian period--also known as the Cambrian "explosion"--dating about 550 million years--reveals all major phyla in full form (even soft-bodied organisms like jelly-fish). Prior to the Cambrian period, all we see are (for the most part) bacteria. The fossil record reveals almost nothing until the Cambrian period--hence the term, Cambrian "explosion." Let me explain.
Pretend you are walking down a football field; you pass the 10, 20, 30 yard line, and all you see are various forms of bacteria. Nothing major, but you keep walking... 40, 50, 60 and so on. When you walk upon the 20 yard line (on the opposite side of the football field), you embark on an explosion of phyla--the basic forms of life--which include mammals and reptiles! All at once!!
Significance?
Well... the Cambrian period turns Darwin's Tree of Life upside down. The Cambrian period shows life forms arising abruptly, not progressively in Darwinian fashion. It is common for "most"--if not all--Darwinists to ignore the Cambrian period (and for good reason).
the sad part is what you just described is...MACROEVOLUTION. not minor changes. major ones. which is classified as macroevolution. SO HAHAHAHAHAHAHA U LOSE!
Has ushome ever actually conceded something once someone like Xmarks or inamilist shows him evidence/proof/logic/etc?? He never did with me when I used to bother with lengthy rebuttals, but I don't really pay enough attention to the ever-escalating ID/Evolution war on the forums, so maybe he has at some point.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Has ushome ever actually conceded something once someone like Xmarks or inamilist shows him evidence/proof/logic/etc?? He never did with me when I used to bother with lengthy rebuttals, but I don't really pay enough attention to the ever-escalating ID/Evolution war on the forums, so maybe he has at some point.
Does it count if he says, "that is exactly my point"?