How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[Tryharder62]

that was explained by Galapagos finches and Darwin, same species when they got to remote island evolved into different species over many many years

horses and donkeys same ancestor, different species, different chromosome count, usually infertile mule offspring

maybe your 18X removed nanna was missing link, o p could be missing link though

I get the Galapagos finches but if this is the theory behind all species wouldn't there be tons of evidence. Evolution in various states among species. Are you sure the finches are just not a mutation? If the world is 4.5 billion years old then there should be more evidence. Really there should!

 

[Saint Peter]

the bush of life

 

[Radiohead]

the bush of life

Dam that bush.

And put a desalination plant behind it.

 

[rocket_surgery]

I get the Galapagos finches but if this is the theory behind all species wouldn't there be tons of evidence. Evolution in various states among species. Are you sure the finches are just not a mutation? If the world is 4.5 billion years old then there should be more evidence. Really there should!

Fossils are very rare and since 99% of the earths history is unrecorded fossils are all we really have to go by. We will never know all the species and their branches. Never ever. It's why we most likely won't ever find all the links between us and whatever common anscestor we have with the apes.
Doesn't make evolution less sound. We will never know what happens in a black hole or even actually see one either but it doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Hard_Rom]

The chances of anything surviving being buried in rock for millions and millions of years is infinitesimal. Conditions have to just right.

Not sure of proto-human world wide distribution in the early days of separation from shared ape ancestor. If confined to small region even less chance of survival or creation of fossils.

If flooding of area is required to preserve fossils. The savannah regions of Africa may not be the best place for preservation where apparently most of our evolution occurred.

As for the finches. If 1+1= 2 here today then 1+1=2 somewhere else yesterday or 200 million years ago.

 

[phrodeau]

Evidence of evolution isn't only in fossils. It is also found in every living thing, from courses of development, bodily structures and patterns of behavior.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Even a field mouse shares 75% of our DNA. Much of it seems to be for defining the symmetrical creature, two fore limbs, two rears, a pair on each side, one eye per side

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Even a field mouse shares 75% of our DNA. Much of it seems to be for defining the symmetrical creature, two fore limbs, two rears, a pair on each side, one eye per side

Good point. A banana shares 50% of the same DNA. I think we are quite different than a Banana.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I get the Galapagos finches but if this is the theory behind all species wouldn't there be tons of evidence.

There is.

 

[Tryharder62]

You have a lot of evidence for mutation and adaptation, but for one species turning into another you don't.

Interesting what a bird expert says:

In a paper in Biological Reviews, Robert Zink says. “None of these ‘species’ are distinct,” he says. The various ground finches don’t differ significantly in ways that usually differentiate bird species, such as plumage patterns or song. Unlike with discrete species, these features aren’t stable and can vary over just a few generations, depending on weather and food availability. Sequences of their nuclear and mitochondrial DNA show little variation and none of the telltale signs that suggest distinct species.


It's funny that the person who started all this speculation about species didn't know a thing about birds.

Still adaptation and mutation to me.

 

[EternalFantasies]

And that's what it is.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Still adaptation and mutation to me.

Adaptation and mutation are what add up to speciation. See post #1731 and please read it carefully this time.

 

[phrodeau]

You have a lot of evidence for mutation and adaptation, but for one species turning into another you don't.

Interesting what a bird expert says:

In a paper in Biological Reviews, Robert Zink says. “None of these ‘species’ are distinct,” he says. The various ground finches don’t differ significantly in ways that usually differentiate bird species, such as plumage patterns or song. Unlike with discrete species, these features aren’t stable and can vary over just a few generations, depending on weather and food availability. Sequences of their nuclear and mitochondrial DNA show little variation and none of the telltale signs that suggest distinct species.


It's funny that the person who started all this speculation about species didn't know a thing about birds.

Still adaptation and mutation to me.

How do you know that you are the same species as your great-great-grandparents? You can't mate with people from past centuries.

Taxonomy is an inexact science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

 

[Tryharder62]

Adaptation and mutation are what add up to speciation. See post #1731 and please read it carefully this time.

I did read it. I just don't agree. I think what you have is adaptation and mutation that could lead to speciation ~ but it doesn't or at least it hasn't.

Darwin's logic looks to me like someone who believes in evolution making the argument that everything leads up to it or from it. Unless you have "it" I think your argument is lacking. He has faith that it will lead to or from that.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I did read it. I just don't agree. I think what you have is adaptation and mutation that could lead to speciation ~ but it doesn't or at least it hasn't.

There is a great deal of evidence that the Earth is 6 billion years old and that over the course of the history of life, many, many new species have emerged at different times, most of which are now extinct, and that our own species is no more than 200,000 years old and has ancestors of other species.

 

[Tryharder62]

How do you know that you are the same species as your great-great-grandparents? You can't mate with people from past centuries.

Taxonomy is an inexact science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

Ummmm.....that is exactly my point. In this case I think the classifications are wrong.

I have to be honest, I don't understand what you are trying to get me to see in the first 2 sentences of this post.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Ummmm.....that is exactly my point. In this case I think the classifications are wrong.

I have to be honest, I don't understand what you are trying to get me to see in the first 2 sentences of this post.

What you are supposed to see is a necrophiliac incest fantasy. Enjoy it.

 

[Tryharder62]

There is a great deal of evidence that the Earth is 6 billion years old and that over the course of the history of life, many, many new species have emerged at different times, most of which are now extinct, and that our own species is no more than 200,000 years old and has ancestors of other species.

This is what I really find fascinating and is the point I alluded to in post 1522. None of what you said is evidence for evolution. None of what you said talks about species actually changing to other species. Species emerged at different times. It all boils down to the belief about time. Was creation in 6 literal days or since God's time is not our time was it longer. What you said does not discount God as the creator.

What you are supposed to see is a necrophiliac incest fantasy. Enjoy it.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/75/48/03/7548039e4746a42c91ae611fb2d0c668.jpg

 

[KingOrfeo]

This is what I really find fascinating and is the point I alluded to in post 1522. None of what you said is evidence for evolution. None of what you said talks about species actually changing to other species. Species emerged at different times.

Yes, species emerged at different times, and evolution, the mechanisms of which are well known, is the most parsimonious explanation for that; God remains an unnecessary hypothesis. And, yes, there is evidence of species actually changing to other species, in the sense that most species have identifiable ancestors of different species.

Creationists try to get around this by something they call baraminogy, but it is pure pseudoscience.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

This a result of a failure to understand how true creation took place. And if you did, and I hope to say 'when', you'd see that it is a sheer miracle. The chances of replicating this are wo ho howwwww.. very very slim.

And yes, it is an intelligent being. And we're in His image.

"true creation"? As opposed to fake creation?

 

[phrodeau]

https://phys.org/news/2016-11-biologists-speciation-laboratory-flask.html

In a month-long experiment using a virus harmless to humans, biologists working at the University of California San Diego and at Michigan State University documented the evolution of a virus into two incipient species—a process known as speciation that Charles Darwin proposed to explain the branching in the tree of life, where one species splits into two distinct species during evolution.

 

[KingOrfeo]

"true creation"? As opposed to fake creation?

Fake creation = plagiarism.

 

[Tryharder62]

Yes, species emerged at different times, and evolution, the mechanisms of which are well known, is the most parsimonious explanation for that; God remains an unnecessary hypothesis. And, yes, there is evidence of species actually changing to other species, in the sense that most species have identifiable ancestors of different species.

Creationists try to get around this by something they call baraminogy, but it is pure pseudoscience.

In my opinion saying "in the sense that" negates everything that was said before it. God may be an unnecessary hypothesis, but a necessary truth.

https://phys.org/news/2016-11-biologists-speciation-laboratory-flask.html

Wow, they studied it for a whole month! And the findings were absolute using the inexact science of Taxonomy? Hmmm....no.

 

[KingOrfeo]

In my opinion saying "in the sense that" negates everything that was said before it.

How? We have a species called a horse. We have remains (not fossils, they are too recent to have fossilized) of an extinct species called eohippus. If biologists observe significant anatomical similarities and the DNA the eohippus would have if ancestral to horses, and if evolution is known to exist (and admitted by creationists to exist, at least within species), is it not a reasonable conclusion that the eohippus is ancestral to the horse? Which would mean either that species do speciate through evolution; or, even though the previous statement fits the evidence perfectly, they instead speciate by occasional insertion of the finger of God, as Intelligent Design (which I capitalize because it's really another name for God) theorists posit. But at any rate we do know very well that they speciate, that one species occasionally becomes another species somehow or other.

God may be an unnecessary hypothesis, but a necessary truth.

That is the point of the classic proofs of Natural Theology, but all are flawed (and the ontological argument is almost laughable).

 

[Hard_Rom]

I think Yanks have such a fascination with creationism due to fact they think their republic sprang up complete and perfect on the first day. Most of the rest of us live in countries which evolved from previous forms.