Okay, well, perhaps I am misunderstanding you. I apologise if I have been, but maybe you are not explaining yourself adequately.
No need for apology, maybe I need to be clearer.☺
WILLOW said:
It seems like you think that evolution produces fully fledged, complex organisms from scratch (at times at least), hence you keep asking 'what comes first'? The answer you have been given for 6 months and more is not that you don't understand evolution but that neither one nor the other came first. That is how evolution is theorised to work.
?I don't think along the lines of one day a wolf jumped in the water and a few months later gave birth to a baby whale.
Having said that, asking which came first, wolf or whale for example; dosen't demonstrate my lack of understanding of TOE.
( apologies to J-MAN for bringing the " wolf-to-whale thing" back up) ☺
If your walk evolution back in time, it is only natural to ask what things came first chronologically.
To go back to my eye example, there is a chronological order (unless you believe they all came about at the same time) for which parts/systems came first.
WILLOW said:
Evolution is insistent that there are intermediate forms.
Yes, I am aware of this.
WILLOW said:
Many intermediate animals have been discovered.
There have been some intermediates
postulated, but the fossil record remains eerily quite in respect. (Thus the missing link hoaxes i.e. piltdown man, nebraska man)
I have to disagree with you on this one and agree with the statements of these famous guys.....
Charles Darwin,
"Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."
Stephen J . Gould,
"I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument"
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study"
Colin Patterson,
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
And let's not forget the whole "Cambrian explosion"
debacle.
WILLOW said:
Evolution has been seen in practise.
If you mean adaptation, yes, if you mean macroevolution, no. They are two completely different things.
WILLOW said:
My dog wasn't the wolf he used to be.
This is not evidence for neo-darwinism.
You are giving an example of variation/
reshufffling of existing traits and/or loss of fuctional info/ the switching off of a gene.
A wolf and a dog are the exact same species, and this in
NO way demonstrates an addition of new specified information to the
canis genome.
Where is the increase in genetic information in your "evolved" dog? I'll be waiting on your answer......
(Could you be the one that is confused on theory?)?
WILLOW said:
Are you choosing to ignore the facts or do you misunderstand them? The latter option is the better one, because the former is troubling.
lulz....what "facts"? A dog and wolf are the same species.
You'll have to be more specific/ provide different "facts"
WILLOW said:
I don't have a problem with you disagreeing at all. You are trying to appeal to my sense of empathy and make me feel like I am being too pushy.
No I'm not. I was simply pointing out that my disagreement with theory doesn't stem from the lack of understanding theory.
WILLOW said:
It actually seems like its because I am disagreeing with you that you react this way.
No, it was more the " You don't understand evolution" comments.
I'm an adult and can have adult conversations/disagreements without getting all bent out of shape.
I'm not upset with you in anyway.
Got nothing but love for ya brother
willow said:
Can you present any evidence that god created the universe? You are demanding I provide evidence for evolution.
Lulz....I'm not "demanding" anything from you.
I'm really questioning neo-darwinism not you.
I'm simply asking questions . I can't help they are difficult for you to answer, and challenge your worldview.
willow said:
Why can you not provide evidence for your own srgument rather then trying to take down mine?
My argument is that neo-darwinism can't explain life as we know it, can be demonstrated false, and is obviously missing a legit mechanism for change.
I am providing evidence (Irregardless of your agreement) for all of these.
⚠Be careful with your strawman, he is flammable.⚠
"Evolution is true because you can't prove God to me", screams fallacy.
WILLOW said:
Note, I'm not saying that evolution is the absolute answer to how life has developed on earth. I have many questions about the origin of life.
That's great, shows you are open minded.
The spontaneous formation of a highly complex 4-bit code should raise eyebrows.
WILLOW said:
I'm sorry if you think I am being condescending. I assure you that I'm not.
I don't think that was your goal. I was just lettting you know what it was starting to come off like.
WILLOW said:
I just think that your perspective, that evolution isn't [true] because god created the universe, is a misunderstanding of reality
That's not my prespective, that's your characterization (mis) of my perspective
WILLOW said:
If saying that to you is insulting, then that, my friend, is 100% your problem.
Opinionated statements with no basis in fact don't typically insult me.
We're all good friend ☺
Caterpillars ARE baby butterflies, though! Caterpillars and butterflies are not "two different creatures", they're genetically the same animal.
Yes, the egg/larva/pupa/adult would all contain the same DNA.
I said, "not exactly baby buttterflies",
meaning they are not just small versions of butterflies that mature. My point was the two are radicallly different, and a caterpillar is like a whole other insect.
The caterpillar and butterfly have completely different brains/CNS. I noticed you didn't address my question of HOW ( educated guess) the caterpillar evolved its brain independent of the butterfly. When the caterpillar dissolves itself into a chemical soup to form a butterfly, a
new brain/CNS is created for the butterfly. The caterpillar's evolution isn't something you can just ignore. How this larval stage got the way it is, is a big conumdrum.