RE: Evolution
April 21, 2012 at 1:57 pm
(This post was last modified: April 21, 2012 at 2:00 pm by Abishalom.)
(April 21, 2012 at 1:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You're still not grasping the variation theme (or you're dedicated to ignoring it even in light of your newfound knowledge of the subject) I think that this is a dead horse at this point. You're simply wrong. It's been explained to you precisely why and how you are wrong multiple times. From here on out, every time you assert nonsense I'm simply going to tell you that you are wrong. All reasonable obligation of explanation has been fulfilled at this point.The variation them it that variation occurs within a species yielding different kinds of the original species. There is a clear limit to the amount of variation (this is well documented).
No, lungfish did not "turn into" amphibians, in fact, a considerable portion of my post was dedicated to dis-abusing you of this very misconception. They -are- amphibians, as well as a great many other things. Their offspring "may" be amphibians (this could change you see), but were their ancestors (and did they cease to be the things their ancestors were when they -became- lungfish)? Good luck.
I sold no such idea, do you have anything other than straw men to offer us?
There is nothing -but- evidence for what you argue against. Again, all obligations of explanation have been fulfilled. You are wrong.
No, it is not, you are wrong.
Anything else?
[insert ad hom here, you've earned it]
Well they are not amphibians-- at all. They are lungfish. There's a difference. Their ancestors were lungfish. You're letting that imagination cloud your reality for a bit there (borderline delusion).
I may have been mistaken by that remark, but now you are seemingly implying that lungfish are not fish but they are perhaps amphibians (and maybe their their ancestors might not be amphibians but possibly fish). You see this is pure speculative in nature and a product of wishful thinking.
No there is plenty of evidence, BUT all of the evidence clearly suggests that variation can only occur to a certain point. The only evidence you have for infinite evolution is presumption without evidence.
No you are wrong. NS is the ONLY way we can get variation. Yes variation occurs through mutation BUT these mutations cannot result in variation without offspring (which are subject to NS to get inherited traits). This is biology 101.
No nothing else. My point is made.
