Posted on 10/27/2009 8:11:33 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
You asked me to find a quote from you and I did - directly from your keyboard.
How is that a strawman? Or are you just changing the subject?
Post hoc ergo proptor hoc has nothing to do with what I stated at all. False cause apply to your own statements, not mine.
“New species arise not by the genetic changes within an individual; but from the changes and selective pressures”
Now there’s a pile of crap with no scientific support!
Just how are are these oh so carefully defined “changes and selective pressures” passed to the next generation, if not gentically?
What a bunch of gobbly-gook.
So there was a *demand*? And it came from where?
And what if something hadn't filled it?
And if the niche was *filled* then why did other primates etc that live in trees evolve?
Didn't someone tell them that the *niche* was filled and couldn't take any more species?
Nice personification of nature there. Gives evos something to replace God with.
You said you thought genetic variation within a species happens rapidly. Where do you think this genetic variation COMES FROM?
And OF COURSE genetics is how these changes are passed down (making it obvious that you lacked the capacity to understand my answer if by reading it you thought I was suggesting otherwise), but it is not changes within a single individual, it is new variation within a species (which you say happens quite rapidly) followed by natural selection of that genetic variation causing a difference in reproductive success that leads to some variations being favored over others; light skin over dark skin in Europe, dark skin over light skin in Africa, etc.
Just an assumption. Extrapolating evolution from variation within species is just due to the philosophical leanings of the evos. Assuming the conclusion is not science, it's a cop out.
That is a bunch of gobbly gook.
The “demand” for monkeys, is that OBVIOUSLY, monkeys do quite well living up in trees. If a single species of monkeys moved down from the trees and started adapting to life on the ground; does that mean that suddenly the monkeys living up the tree lost their means of livelihood?
The first airplane designers were bicycle makers. Did the advent of airplane manufacturing eliminate the need for bicycles?
Physician, heal thyself.....
Evolution = change in the genes or frequency of a gene within a population.
How could variation arise within a species without it being evolution by definition?
How does this “rapid” variation within a species arise?
How is this variation somehow not evolution?
‘Because I say so!’ is not a reasonable answer, but somehow I suspect it is all you are capable of coming up with.
How delusional can you be, amd? You SAID,..."New species arise not by the genetic changes within an individual; but from the changes and selective pressures within an entire interbreeding population; much as the selective pressure of living in Europe led to pale skin in the populations that lived there.
There is no room for misunderstanding your comment, and accusing someone of misunderstanding a clearly worded statement to weasel out of admitting that you screwed up and worded the comment badly, fools no one but you.
Your response still contains no example of scientific achievement. Criticism is easy - that seems to be what you are pointing to. But scientific evaluation it isn’t.
I’m just waiting for the term, “fully formed.”
If only so I can ask for the billionth time what a non fully formed fossil (or animal) would be.
Still having trouble understanding it, or do I need to draw you a picture?
So where does this “rapid” variation within a species come from and why isn't it evolution as biologists define evolution?
Why are you both so studiously and obstinately avoiding the question?
New species arise not by the genetic changes within an individual; but from the changes and selective pressures
Now theres a pile of crap with no scientific support!
Just how are are these oh so carefully defined changes and selective pressures passed to the next generation, if not gentically?”
Note: Allmendream used the correlative AND in his sentence meaning that not one, but both, would be required.
Can an evo ever NOT misrepresent or read into what someone says?
Apparently not.
Just what in my comment suggested that I thought that? I didn't address that at all, nor did I imply it.
If you want to discredit me you'll have to pick a more credible strawman to erect.
You mean I can't use the standard evo knee jerk response?
Why the double standard all the time with the evos?
Why are you so studiously and obstinately avoiding the question?
“If you want to drop the conversation I can certainly see why.”
Variation within a species is not the evolution theory you subscribe to. Variation within a species is a scientific fact, unlike the theory, or I should say, the hypothesis of evolution which is not scientific fact.
There are no beneficial mutations (evolution) taking place when a species exhibits variation. There is only an expression of genes already in the DNA.
And I promise I’ll not respond to any more of your posts....maybe.
“The detail in their (Gansus) preservation, such as the bone structure and even foot webbing, indicates the animals were well adapted to an aquatic existence. Scientists say Gansus is the oldest known member of the group that includes modern birds. They believe this makes its story a critical one in understanding the evolution of avian species.
“Every bird living today, from ostriches... to bald eagles, probably evolved from a Gansus-like ancestor,” Matthew Lamanna, of Carnegie Natural History Museum in Pittsburgh, US, told a news conference on Thursday.
Gansus yumenensis was first described from a fossil leg found in 1983. The new finds, however, give scientists an almost complete view of the animal. All they lack now is an example of a skull. The specimens come from a quarry near the town of Changma, in China's Gansu Province, about 2,000km (1,200 miles) west of Beijing. Co-author Jerald Harris, of Dixie State College of Utah, said the animal was very modern in its appearance.
“If you took most of the bones in its body, including famous pieces like the breastbone and the wishbone, and put them next to those of a modern bird, you'd have a lot of difficulty telling them apart,” he told the BBC Radio 4’s Leading Edge programme.
“Gansus would probably have looked very much like a grebe or a diver, or certain kinds of ducks. It had webbed feet and it had fairly powerful legs. We can tell that from looking at the bones in the knee area. This tells us it was a very well-adapted diving or swimming-type bird.”
palaeosbios.blogspot.com/.../waterfowl-fossil-makes-splash.html
And this from NatGeo:
“.......According to the researchers, Gansus is the oldest clearly established member of the subclass Ornithurae, the group most closely related to modern birds.
The Gansus fossils are only 10 to 15 million years younger than the “feathered dinosaurs” discovered a decade ago at Liaoning, in western China.............
news.nationalgeographic.com/.../060615-dinosaurs_2.html -
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.