Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're just grasping at symantic straws. When a human egg cell divides into many human cells they operate as many individual cells. Each reproducing, eating, and eliminating waste. Many individual cells, one, multi-celluar organism of one species.
the difference between a zygote growing into a fetus and eventually into an adult human is more than just a symantic difference from the evolution of one species into another.....
Please explain the difference from the amoeba described below:
There are three theories, one of which is the colonial theory proposed by Haeckel in 1874. This theory claims that the symbiosis of many organisms of the same species led to a multicellular organism. The advantage of the Colonial Theory hypothesis is that it has been seen to occur independently in 16 different protoctistan phyla. For instance, during food shortages the amoeba Dictyostelium groups together in a colony that moves as one to a new location. Some of these amoeba then slightly differentiate from each other. Other examples of colonial organisation in protista are Volvocaceae, such as Eudorina and Volvox, the latter of which consists of up to 50050,000 cells (depending on the species), only a fraction of which reproduce.[20] (Multicellular organism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Remember it is you who claim this is the evolution of one species into another not me. Something quite incorrect since they are single and mult-celled forms of the same species. Not unlike an egg and an adult.
some are, some aren't........has one ever evolved into the other in a lab experiment?.....seems like a prime opportunity for you to obtain the proof you are lacking.....
I used to eat meat but my thinking evolved over time and now I'm a vegetarian. Then we had 2 children who are both vegetarians. That's an evolution towards a healthier lifestyle, and now our branch of our family trees has changed/mutated/evolved into vegetarians. Pretty simple to understand really.
lol.....the species of BillyPs.....doomed to extinction.....
I used to eat meat but my thinking evolved over time and now I'm a vegetarian. Then we had 2 children who are both vegetarians. That's an evolution towards a healthier lifestyle, and now our branch of our family trees has changed/mutated/evolved into vegetarians. Pretty simple to understand really.
lol.....the species of BillyPs.....doomed to extinction.....
I just proved evolution for you. Now, is there anything else?
the difference between a zygote growing into a fetus and eventually into an adult human is more than just a symantic difference from the evolution of one species into another.....
Please explain the difference from the amoeba described below:
the difference is obvious.....one of your colonies does not mate with another colony and produce a new colony.....instead a different bunch of individuals begin to cluster together.......
lol.....the species of BillyPs.....doomed to extinction.....
I just proved evolution for you. Now, is there anything else?
yes, wipe that grin off your face and try again without the jokes....unless of course you previously were single celled organisms.....
Remember it is you who claim this is the evolution of one species into another not me. Something quite incorrect since they are single and mult-celled forms of the same species. Not unlike an egg and an adult.
???....I made no such claim....in fact, I specifically stated it was NOT evidence of a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism......it is a cluster of single celled organisms remaining single celled organisms.....
Please explain the difference from the amoeba described below:
the difference is obvious.....one of your colonies does not mate with another colony and produce a new colony.....instead a different bunch of individuals begin to cluster together.......
How does sexual verses asexual reproduction matter? The egg was fertilized and then began to divide while a single celled animal asexually divides. Same difference. Sexual reproduction is not required for multi-celled organisms.
I just proved evolution for you. Now, is there anything else?
yes, wipe that grin off your face and try again without the jokes....unless of course you previously were single celled organisms.....
I already proved that single cell crap with a link. Anything else?
Remember it is you who claim this is the evolution of one species into another not me. Something quite incorrect since they are single and mult-celled forms of the same species. Not unlike an egg and an adult.
???....I made no such claim....in fact, I specifically stated it was NOT evidence of a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism......it is a cluster of single celled organisms remaining single celled organisms.....
This ameboa is both single celled AND multi-celled. It is multi-celled since in it's colonial form, the member cells differentiate while joined. They don't just live near each other they interact with each other.
???....I made no such claim....in fact, I specifically stated it was NOT evidence of a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism......it is a cluster of single celled organisms remaining single celled organisms.....
This ameboa is both single celled AND multi-celled. It is multi-celled since in it's colonial form, the member cells differentiate while joined. They don't just live near each other they interact with each other.
no.....they are still single celled.....they are not a single organism, they are a cluster of, for example, 64 separate organisms.....when one dies, it just gets replaced by the next single celled organism that comes along.....when a multicelled organism dies, its dead......
the difference is obvious.....one of your colonies does not mate with another colony and produce a new colony.....instead a different bunch of individuals begin to cluster together.......
How does sexual verses asexual reproduction matter? The egg was fertilized and then began to divide while a single celled animal asexually divides. Same difference. Sexual reproduction is not required for multi-celled organisms.
your clusters don't reproduce multicelled organisms either sexually or asexually.....
This ameboa is both single celled AND multi-celled. It is multi-celled since in it's colonial form, the member cells differentiate while joined. They don't just live near each other they interact with each other.
no.....they are still single celled.....they are not a single organism, they are a cluster of, for example, 64 separate organisms.....when one dies, it just gets replaced by the next single celled organism that comes along.....when a multicelled organism dies, its dead......
Your skin cells are constantly dying and being replaced.
Having trouble admitting you have gone out on a limb and now have no where to escape to?
How does sexual verses asexual reproduction matter? The egg was fertilized and then began to divide while a single celled animal asexually divides. Same difference. Sexual reproduction is not required for multi-celled organisms.
your clusters don't reproduce multicelled organisms either sexually or asexually.....
Don't buy it. A distinction without a difference.
Since evolution is just the name applied to the process of animals and plants changing over time and you seem to be saying you don't deny that process is taking place, what exactly is your concern?
Because evolution and Evolutionism are two different things. Evolution as in adaptation is observable while Evolutionism has no observable proof.
Applying the basic rules of English here, Evolutionism would be the belief in evolution. So what you are saying is that while evolution is observable, the belief in evolution is not. I can only respond that you have been conversing with a lot of people who say they believe evolution to be a reality, what more observation do you require?
The exact reason why you are trying to disprove creation and put it out of your conscience. After all the word conscience comes from the prefix "con" which means with and the root word "science". Put together they mean with science. You are given a conscience by the creator that convicts you of the existence of a Creator. Evolution is just a means of finding something that can block common sense.
(Romans 1:22)
You have it backwards. I'm not trying to disprove Creation or the existence of any God(s). I'm trying to understand how the natural world functions. The problem comes when there's a scientific finding that doesn't mesh with someone's holy book. Of course, the holy book can't possibly be wrong or not holy or not literal, so we end up with all the mental gymnastics from your crowd about how the science is wrong, or the passage isn't to be taken literally this time, or how if you squint your eyes and turn your heard just right the vague meaning of a passage written for Bronze Age goat herders is exactly what the findings of particle astrophysicists are finding.
MOST ALL evangelical colleges and universities teach evolution.
Sooner than later ignorance will be wiped out.
The Bible is a great book and tells us what we need to know.
But the Bible does not tell us everything.
Micromanaging one's faith only leads to a weaker one.
Jellyfish are.
Be more specific in your argument.
some are, some aren't........has one ever evolved into the other in a lab experiment?.....seems like a prime opportunity for you to obtain the proof you are lacking.....
I used to eat meat but my thinking evolved over time and now I'm a vegetarian. Then we had 2 children who are both vegetarians. That's an evolution towards a healthier lifestyle, and now our branch of our family trees has changed/mutated/evolved into vegetarians. Pretty simple to understand really.
You are in denial.
In thermodynamics everything is moving towards equilibrium. Once all energy reaches that state, no more work can be done. That includes moving your fingers to type the words "Let me google that for you".
On the other hand there is the recent theory by scientist speculating that the universe would collapse in on itself with a "big flash" (or bang) thereby ending in fire. This clearly lines up with the prophecy given by the apostle Peter in 2Peter 3:10.
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
(2 Peter 3:10)
Want to know how I know you've never taken Physics II or Thermodynamics?
The "prevailing" hypothesis is the one that I first mentioned which is heat death. So yes, that is correct. However, the prevailing planetary model used to be that the earth was at the center of the universe. We now know that isn't true.Also, the Big Crunch is no longer the prevailing hypothesis for the end of the universe. Right now we're thinking continual expansion until we get to the Heat Death of the universe in 10^10^56 years.
You keep repeating the same thing over and over, yet nowhere do you answer the question. I am not asking why some giraffes have shorter necks than others. I want you to explain how the giraffe evolved from a non giraffe.
I don't know exactly how but I could provide a scenario that created other species, will that do?
Imagine the short-necked, short-legged, forest-dwelling ancestor of the giraffe inhabiting an valley that, due to volcanic eruptions becomes isolated from the others of its kind. The valley dries out and the animals that are taller can reach more food and survive more often. Over thousands of years the process continues until that short-necked, short-legged, forest-dwelling ancestor of the giraffe has become the giraffe we know today. Now the volcano erodes and once-isolated giraffe population spreads out and encounters their ancestors, still short-necked, short-legged, and forest-dwelling. The two population will not interbreed and are now two distinct species.
Because evolution and Evolutionism are two different things. Evolution as in adaptation is observable while Evolutionism has no observable proof.
Applying the basic rules of English here, Evolutionism would be the belief in evolution. So what you are saying is that while evolution is observable, the belief in evolution is not. I can only respond that you have been conversing with a lot of people who say they believe evolution to be a reality, what more observation do you require?
Evolutionism = the belief that every living thing had a common ancestor and that common ancestor came from a warm pond of goo. AKA macro-evolution or from the goo to the zoo to you. This cannot and has never been observed. This is a religion.
Evolution (or micro-evolution) = the adaptation of plants and animals to their surrounding environment. This can be observed. This is science.
Hope this clarifies.
