You're avoiding my point and issues with evolution and appealing to the majority of biologists and that is good enough for you
Audie wrote: abelcainsbrother wrote: abelcainsbrother wrote:
We are trying to build your argument. To show that x leads to y.
When you refer back to your conclusion you are jumping to the conclusion.
Did dogs come from wolves?
Yes dogs came from wolves.
You never answered me. Is reproduction evolution? What is the difference between reproduction and evolution? Because several here have already implied reproduction is evolution. There is a problem bigtime with this kind of thinking and evidence. First off Charles Darwin assumed that based on the normal variation in a litter of kittens,that variation might be accumulated,generation by generation,and extrapolated ad infinitum in order to finally turn a cat into a totally new and different kind of creature.
You see normal variation in reproduction was known about thousands of years before Charles Darwin,which is how we have dogs and roses with variety today,but this is called evolution today and all of the peer reviewed evidence in evolution science is just demonstrating normal variation in reproduction not that life evolves and my point is reproduction and scientists demonstrating there is variation in reproduction is not evidence life evolves,yet it is used for evidence life evolves.
Reproduction is not evolution. They are not even spelled the same. The meaning is quite different. Genetic recombination is not evolution.
peer reviewed evidence in evolution science is just demonstrating normal variation in reproduction
There is a problem bigtime with this kind of thinking and evidence.
You have not accurately identified who is confused. On the average, who is it more likely to be?
The person with no formal education in biology, or all the biologists in every country, race and religion around the world?
Try answering just that one question.
. Why are you so afraid that there is no evidence life evolves?I go by evidence
regardless of what the majority say and you should too.Explain the difference between reproduction and evolution? because they are the same thing in evolution science. You are believing life evolves based on normal variation in reproduction and believing and assuming the rest is true without evidence.
Don't get mad at me because we disagree about this because I am open to evidence,so show or present evidence in evolution science that demonstrates life evolves instead of just normal variation in reproduction and using it for evidence life evolves. If you do? I'll change my mind about evolution.
I am sure you are a nice and sincere person. Get mad at you? Heavens, dear boy, whatever for? You might well be exasperating sometimes, but get mad? Afraid?
Speaking of nonsense, I have put in bold above things that are simply not true, as in false; you just made up those things. It is said that the start on wisdom is knowing what you dont know. You are unaware of very very simple basic things. You do not "go by the evidence', though you may think you do; you simply do not know the evidence.
It is ok not to know. Making things up, though, is not. Stop doing it.
Reproduction is, well, Im sure you know what it is. You do?
Reproduction gives a recombination of genes that already exist.
Mutations produce new genetics.
Mutation and genetic recombination are not the same thing
It is not every biologist on earth who does not know that.
Anything in the environment that gives a higher survival rate to a particular mutation
results in a genetic shift in the population. That shift in the genetic make up of the population is what evolution is all about.
If you wish to deny that mutations take place, go for it.
If you are in fact "open to evidence" let us know that you see that there is a difference between mutation and recombination.
Then let us know that you understand that evolution takes place by means of mutations.