|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
Depends on what you mean by coevolution. Co-evolution is a cop out god did it type answer. Sorry for not being clear. I meant to request that you define co-evolution as you understand it, so I could adequately address your question. "(things evolving in the same amount of time)" was given once. As some may be new to evolutionology (the study of evolutionists), I like to include tips occasionally which are intended to be helpful. Here's one: I notice an excessive amount of requests for definitions being thrown in. This behaviour is consistent with stalling, just wasting time, & preparing to equivocate. It could hypothetically be legit, so one should wait & see what follows before classifying the actions. Blood, then blood vessels that functioned to move the blood, then a specialized blood vessel that function as a central pump. Why?...same as above. So evolution is as easy as baking a pie? Poof there it is? This seems to be an expression of your incredulity regarding the simple explanation I provided. Could you provide a response with a more applicable critique of what I wrote? I expect one could go into more detail, but I cannot imagine a more applicable critique. Using your logic here. The gene that causes this should have already been eliminated, because all babies before the sugery existed to save them would have died. Keeping that gene from being passed on. But that is not what we see now is it?
And I noticed that you skipped the part about the babies heart working as a parallel pump. I guess you did not have an answer to that one. No, I wasn't specific about that particular mechanism or any of the others for that matter. Do you want me to go over the list of animals related to the possible ancestors of humans and show the variants of this mechanism in them? Should I then provide the conclusions of the biologists in regards to how this particular function likely evolved? It can be done but that would take some time. Additionally, I don't see how this is going to be worth the time. I doubt you would accept the detailed explanation since the biologists "weren't there to see it", and you could just rebut with another question about another "irreducibly complex" system like blood clotting or insulin manufacture. If this is to be an endless line of questioning then maybe you should open a thread on each question and wait until discussion on that is exhausted before opening another thread on another question. Endless line of questioning? So says the one with the endless line of 'please defines'. So say the one who is introducing an endless line of "animals related to the possible ancestors of humans" to the conversation. [quote]Why do you think that seeing where something has been gives us the ability to tell where it is going to be? Also, this question implies that evolution has a "goal" or a direction. So the environment doesn't define a "goal"? How then can it be said that anything is better adapted than anything else? Yet you go on to say First of all, the Theory of Evolution is all about the environmental changes' effects on the population of organisms. A meteor impact is an environmental change or causes one. Organism that have traits that help them survive the sweeping changes in the environment win the Meteor-Impact lottery and pass their genes to the next generation. You seem to want to divorce evolution from its driving force, the environment. I don't see how you can adequately discuss a theory if you must remove an element of that theory in order to debate it. From my point of view, it's like discussing gravitation theory without discussing mass.
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
