|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Not true. The science of evolution cannot be debated without addressing its underlying error of not addressing the pivotal differences between its species classifications. Nor is it a religious arguement that humans have a factor not addressed by darwin's categories - it is absolute and legitiate science to point this out, and one must address the results when this is factored in.Otherwise, one can say also that zebras evolved from calcium particles, and disregard all other factors. But this would also mean, there is no reason for ccategorising differences. Why don't you try to nominate why birds fly and humans possess speech - with scientific coherence? You will find no assistance in darwin here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Is this not an external environment impact, as opposed any ininherent traits: there is no indication here of speciation outside the bird family? Humans also exhibit the same quality when different nationalisties are osmosized.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: What if there is a legitimate qualification preposed, that the species classifications of Darwin does not cater to a pivotal factor in humans as a category of its own? Does this infringe the thread subject? I refer to the fact that humans are distinquished from all other life forms, primarily and exclusively, by speech, a constant which has prevailed over all of time. The categorising of life forms by skeletal and biological imprints, as per Darwin's species, does not acknowledge this pivotal factor - which makes the conclusions based on generic factors, common to all life, as wanting. Its like nominating a million 'red' marbles by their shades of 'red' - while disregarding that one marble is 'blue' - and never seen anywhere else. It is feasable that this factor can be the most legitimate path to the premise of manifest 'differentials' debated within the evolutionary menu: if one factor stands out, and is the most powerful one - all the biological imprints have to cater to that stand out feature, and explain why it is not generic, as per all other generic differentials?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Tooth size variations - equatable with speech? Well - one more opine will make this Q conclusive for this thread!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I disagree - absolutely; variations are not intrinsic or pivotal differences. But I won't take up this issue here. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: If you mean a mute human, this is an exception to the rule, and not catering to the issue.
quote: Communication is common to all life forms, and a varied attribute from speech. I don't see dolphins or elephant noses being the right TICK-OFF what sets humans apart from all other life forms. Basically, I have accepted this thread's majority view, but not by agreeing in any manner whatsoever: in fact I see the reluctance to a blatant logic as a lacking, but this thread appears not inclined in a variant view of what has been accepted of darwin's classifications by skeletal and biological imprints only, and where speech is not a consideration. We must agree to disagree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Start a new thread, and tell me when you expect the next *COMMON* descent of talking Zebras.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Sure I can nominate the best candidate of what constitutes the strongest evidence for evolution. Its the 'seed', quite a comprehensive term for a factor which can carry and pass on all required data. If there be any disputation of this factor, the best way is by elimination - and here a counterpart to this thread would help. How can one nominate the best candidate if they are not certain what does NOT apply. How about a thread, MOST CONVINCING EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION? Its called the 'devil's deciple' principle, and it works.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024