(things evolving in the same amount of time)" was given once.
Easy. Things don't "evolve in the same amount of time" if you mean two different systems within an organism of a particular population. The changes in a particular organ through the generations of a population are somewhat independent of the changes to other organs unless the changes in interaction between those organs results in a change to survivability.
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.
This does not address the reply I made to ikester, and seems to be an attempt to paint all evolutionists as disingenuous.
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.
This appears to simply be an insult to me personally.
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.
Perhaps my exasperation showed in my comment to ikester. For that I apologize. However, I consider this another attempt to imply that all those who believe in evolution engage in deceptive tactics.
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?
Because the better adapted species are still alive. That's pretty much the Go/No-Go test for adaptive suitability.
The goal of life is to survive. Evolution is the means by which life continues in a changing world. Since evolution is a process, it cannot have a goal.
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.
And my statement implies a goal for the process of evolution in what way? Please be specific in your answer.
