How Old Do You The Earth Is?

[Youwerecreated]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic single cell and multicellular. If what you state is accurate, what kind of evolution would it be ? What kind of evolution is a single celled organism evolving in to a multicellular organism ?

I used to eat meat until my thinking EVOLVED and now I eat a much healthier vegetarian diet. Evolution is about changing over time, small changes that over time add up to significant changes, and nothing is going to go poof and change from a lion into a baboon. We'd need your god for that.

So you agree that the natural process of the zygote producing a human is not evolution. You avoid answering the questions,why ?

It evolved/changed/became ... Maybe it's just that I have a looser definition that yours, which only seems to count evolution when something changes into another species. And you'd of course be wrong.

I have given you the chance to identify the kind of evolution it is you brought up, if it is evolution. How bout better nutrition , would that produce what you claim is evolution ?

Evolution is definitely influenced by outside sources, a changing environment which would change diet has been a factor in several changes in species.

Correct,I believe in evolution there is no denying it. But I believe adapting to environments is limited and so is evolution.

Limited by what? Why? You add up 10,000 tiny changes and you'll potentially have a big change from where you started from, and those small changes just keep on coming, but you say that those small changes stop at some point?

Because changes in a group are driven by reproduction.So do mutations "copying errors" truly bring about these changes or is it that these small changes come from genes that already exist in the gene pool ? example of limits is the cross breeding of a donkey and a horse. If you consider all the species that went extinct infers limits to adapting to an environment.

Some changes don't work out and that species dies off, like the Neanderthal's who couldn't adapt to the coming ice age and died out. But changes keep coming constantly to every living organism.

That is exactly my point. Why are supposed transitional species extinct if they were better adapted ? if they are extinct how did they pass on their traits ?

 

[Hollie]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic single cell and multicellular. If what you state is accurate, what kind of evolution would it be ? What kind of evolution is a single celled organism evolving in to a multicellular organism ?

I used to eat meat until my thinking EVOLVED and now I eat a much healthier vegetarian diet. Evolution is about changing over time, small changes that over time add up to significant changes, and nothing is going to go poof and change from a lion into a baboon. We'd need your god for that.

So you agree that the natural process of the zygote producing a human is not evolution. You avoid answering the questions,why ?

It evolved/changed/became ... Maybe it's just that I have a looser definition that yours, which only seems to count evolution when something changes into another species. And you'd of course be wrong.

I have given you the chance to identify the kind of evolution it is you brought up, if it is evolution. How bout better nutrition , would that produce what you claim is evolution ?

Evolution is definitely influenced by outside sources, a changing environment which would change diet has been a factor in several changes in species.

Correct,I believe in evolution there is no denying it. But I believe adapting to environments is limited and so is evolution.

Limited by what? Why? You add up 10,000 tiny changes and you'll potentially have a big change from where you started from, and those small changes just keep on coming, but you say that those small changes stop at some point?

Because changes in a group are driven by reproduction.So do mutations "copying errors" truly bring about these changes or is it that these small changes come from genes that already exist in the gene pool ? example of limits is the cross breeding of a donkey and a horse. If you consider all the species that went extinct infers limits to adapting to an environment.

Some changes don't work out and that species dies off, like the Neanderthal's who couldn't adapt to the coming ice age and died out. But changes keep coming constantly to every living organism.

That is exactly my point. Why are supposed transitional species extinct if they were better adapted ? if they are extinct how did they pass on their traits ?

All species are transitional. Some adapt to changing environmental conditions, some do not.

You might consider taking some night courses in paleontology or biology at a local community college.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic single cell and multicellular. If what you state is accurate, what kind of evolution would it be ? What kind of evolution is a single celled organism evolving in to a multicellular organism ?

I used to eat meat until my thinking EVOLVED and now I eat a much healthier vegetarian diet. Evolution is about changing over time, small changes that over time add up to significant changes, and nothing is going to go poof and change from a lion into a baboon. We'd need your god for that.

So you agree that the natural process of the zygote producing a human is not evolution. You avoid answering the questions,why ?

It evolved/changed/became ... Maybe it's just that I have a looser definition that yours, which only seems to count evolution when something changes into another species. And you'd of course be wrong.

I have given you the chance to identify the kind of evolution it is you brought up, if it is evolution. How bout better nutrition , would that produce what you claim is evolution ?

Evolution is definitely influenced by outside sources, a changing environment which would change diet has been a factor in several changes in species.

Correct,I believe in evolution there is no denying it. But I believe adapting to environments is limited and so is evolution.

Limited by what? Why? You add up 10,000 tiny changes and you'll potentially have a big change from where you started from, and those small changes just keep on coming, but you say that those small changes stop at some point?

Because changes in a group are driven by reproduction.So do mutations "copying errors" truly bring about these changes or is it that these small changes come from genes that already exist in the gene pool ? example of limits is the cross breeding of a donkey and a horse. If you consider all the species that went extinct infers limits to adapting to an environment.

Some changes don't work out and that species dies off, like the Neanderthal's who couldn't adapt to the coming ice age and died out. But changes keep coming constantly to every living organism.

That is exactly my point. Why are supposed transitional species extinct if they were better adapted ? if they are extinct how did they pass on their traits ?

All species are transitional. Some adapt to changing environmental conditions, some do not.

You might consider taking some night courses in paleontology or biology at a local community college.

Hollie making a statement like this without evidence to prove it is meaningless.Most of you that make comments like this do not understand just what it takes for new traits to be passed through a population.This is a copout answer to a question nothing more and nothing less. Example,as large as the mutt population is,it will never produce a purebreed without selective breeding .if it can't produce a purebreed, it cannot produce a new species. The only way it could is through circular reasoningand imagination, because there are many different breeds within families,how did it happen ?

 

[Hollie]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic single cell and multicellular. If what you state is accurate, what kind of evolution would it be ? What kind of evolution is a single celled organism evolving in to a multicellular organism ?

I used to eat meat until my thinking EVOLVED and now I eat a much healthier vegetarian diet. Evolution is about changing over time, small changes that over time add up to significant changes, and nothing is going to go poof and change from a lion into a baboon. We'd need your god for that.

So you agree that the natural process of the zygote producing a human is not evolution. You avoid answering the questions,why ?

It evolved/changed/became ... Maybe it's just that I have a looser definition that yours, which only seems to count evolution when something changes into another species. And you'd of course be wrong.

I have given you the chance to identify the kind of evolution it is you brought up, if it is evolution. How bout better nutrition , would that produce what you claim is evolution ?

Evolution is definitely influenced by outside sources, a changing environment which would change diet has been a factor in several changes in species.

Correct,I believe in evolution there is no denying it. But I believe adapting to environments is limited and so is evolution.

Limited by what? Why? You add up 10,000 tiny changes and you'll potentially have a big change from where you started from, and those small changes just keep on coming, but you say that those small changes stop at some point?

Because changes in a group are driven by reproduction.So do mutations "copying errors" truly bring about these changes or is it that these small changes come from genes that already exist in the gene pool ? example of limits is the cross breeding of a donkey and a horse. If you consider all the species that went extinct infers limits to adapting to an environment.

Some changes don't work out and that species dies off, like the Neanderthal's who couldn't adapt to the coming ice age and died out. But changes keep coming constantly to every living organism.

That is exactly my point. Why are supposed transitional species extinct if they were better adapted ? if they are extinct how did they pass on their traits ?

All species are transitional. Some adapt to changing environmental conditions, some do not.

You might consider taking some night courses in paleontology or biology at a local community college.

Hollie making a statement like this without evidence to prove it is meaningless.Most of you that make comments like this do not understand just what it takes for new traits to be passed through a population.This is a copout answer to a question nothing more and nothing less. Example,as large as the mutt population is,it will never produce a purebreed without selective breeding .if it can't produce a purebreed, it cannot produce a new species. The only way it could is through circular reasoningand imagination, because there are many different breeds within families,how did it happen ?

Your example of selective breeding is pointless as it is the inverse of natural selection.

Please do take some night courses. You really do need some help with science... and some basic common sense.

 

[sealybobo]

4.6 billion years. Give or take a decade.

The age of the universe — now believed to be about13.8 billion years— fits that model, as the number and maturity of observed galaxies seem to fit in the general scheme.

Hawking noted that Pope John Paul II admonished the scientific establishment against studying the moment of creation, as it was holy.

Hawkings closed by outlining "M-theory,". M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist.

This question is mainly to the Christians that post on this forum. Just trying to get an idea of what percentage of you are fundamentalists or young earth creationists mostly out of idle curiosity.

The age of the universe — now believed to be about 13.8 billion years

But you should not ask such questions. Better to stay ignorant and have faith. Just ask Pope John Paul II admonished the scientific establishment in the 1980's against studying the moment of creation, as it was holy.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic single cell and multicellular. If what you state is accurate, what kind of evolution would it be ? What kind of evolution is a single celled organism evolving in to a multicellular organism ?

I used to eat meat until my thinking EVOLVED and now I eat a much healthier vegetarian diet. Evolution is about changing over time, small changes that over time add up to significant changes, and nothing is going to go poof and change from a lion into a baboon. We'd need your god for that.

So you agree that the natural process of the zygote producing a human is not evolution. You avoid answering the questions,why ?

It evolved/changed/became ... Maybe it's just that I have a looser definition that yours, which only seems to count evolution when something changes into another species. And you'd of course be wrong.

I have given you the chance to identify the kind of evolution it is you brought up, if it is evolution. How bout better nutrition , would that produce what you claim is evolution ?

Evolution is definitely influenced by outside sources, a changing environment which would change diet has been a factor in several changes in species.

Correct,I believe in evolution there is no denying it. But I believe adapting to environments is limited and so is evolution.

Limited by what? Why? You add up 10,000 tiny changes and you'll potentially have a big change from where you started from, and those small changes just keep on coming, but you say that those small changes stop at some point?

Because changes in a group are driven by reproduction.So do mutations "copying errors" truly bring about these changes or is it that these small changes come from genes that already exist in the gene pool ? example of limits is the cross breeding of a donkey and a horse. If you consider all the species that went extinct infers limits to adapting to an environment.

Some changes don't work out and that species dies off, like the Neanderthal's who couldn't adapt to the coming ice age and died out. But changes keep coming constantly to every living organism.

That is exactly my point. Why are supposed transitional species extinct if they were better adapted ? if they are extinct how did they pass on their traits ?

All species are transitional. Some adapt to changing environmental conditions, some do not.

You might consider taking some night courses in paleontology or biology at a local community college.

Hollie making a statement like this without evidence to prove it is meaningless.Most of you that make comments like this do not understand just what it takes for new traits to be passed through a population.This is a copout answer to a question nothing more and nothing less. Example,as large as the mutt population is,it will never produce a purebreed without selective breeding .if it can't produce a purebreed, it cannot produce a new species. The only way it could is through circular reasoningand imagination, because there are many different breeds within families,how did it happen ?

Your example of selective breeding is pointless as it is the inverse of natural selection.

Please do take some night courses. You really do need some help with science... and some basic common sense.

What is the point of responding to someone that lacks the education to have this conversation. I have all the schooling needed to respond to an Ideologue. You still provided no answer to the questions. If you let a group of mutts breed no matter the length of time , you will never get what a macroevolutionist needs. Genetics have always been a problem for Ideologues like yourself. Have a good day you very irrational person.

 

[Hollie]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic single cell and multicellular. If what you state is accurate, what kind of evolution would it be ? What kind of evolution is a single celled organism evolving in to a multicellular organism ?

I used to eat meat until my thinking EVOLVED and now I eat a much healthier vegetarian diet. Evolution is about changing over time, small changes that over time add up to significant changes, and nothing is going to go poof and change from a lion into a baboon. We'd need your god for that.

So you agree that the natural process of the zygote producing a human is not evolution. You avoid answering the questions,why ?

It evolved/changed/became ... Maybe it's just that I have a looser definition that yours, which only seems to count evolution when something changes into another species. And you'd of course be wrong.

I have given you the chance to identify the kind of evolution it is you brought up, if it is evolution. How bout better nutrition , would that produce what you claim is evolution ?

Evolution is definitely influenced by outside sources, a changing environment which would change diet has been a factor in several changes in species.

Correct,I believe in evolution there is no denying it. But I believe adapting to environments is limited and so is evolution.

Limited by what? Why? You add up 10,000 tiny changes and you'll potentially have a big change from where you started from, and those small changes just keep on coming, but you say that those small changes stop at some point?

Because changes in a group are driven by reproduction.So do mutations "copying errors" truly bring about these changes or is it that these small changes come from genes that already exist in the gene pool ? example of limits is the cross breeding of a donkey and a horse. If you consider all the species that went extinct infers limits to adapting to an environment.

Some changes don't work out and that species dies off, like the Neanderthal's who couldn't adapt to the coming ice age and died out. But changes keep coming constantly to every living organism.

That is exactly my point. Why are supposed transitional species extinct if they were better adapted ? if they are extinct how did they pass on their traits ?

All species are transitional. Some adapt to changing environmental conditions, some do not.

You might consider taking some night courses in paleontology or biology at a local community college.

Hollie making a statement like this without evidence to prove it is meaningless.Most of you that make comments like this do not understand just what it takes for new traits to be passed through a population.This is a copout answer to a question nothing more and nothing less. Example,as large as the mutt population is,it will never produce a purebreed without selective breeding .if it can't produce a purebreed, it cannot produce a new species. The only way it could is through circular reasoningand imagination, because there are many different breeds within families,how did it happen ?

Your example of selective breeding is pointless as it is the inverse of natural selection.

Please do take some night courses. You really do need some help with science... and some basic common sense.

What is the point of responding to someone that lacks the education to have this conversation. I have all the schooling needed to respond to an Ideologue. You still provided no answer to the questions. If you let a group of mutts breed no matter the length of time , you will never get what a macroevolutionist needs. Genetics have always been a problem for Ideologues like yourself. Have a good day you very irrational person.

I thought you would scurry away when faced with the false claims and bad analogies that define your arguments.

 

[BillyP]

Some changes don't work out and that species dies off, like the Neanderthal's who couldn't adapt to the coming ice age and died out. But changes keep coming constantly to every living organism.

That is exactly my point. Why are supposed transitional species extinct if they were better adapted ? if they are extinct how did they pass on their traits ?

Transitional species evolve, and don't go extinct. Neanderthals weren't a transitional species, they were an offshoot species that died out because they couldn't adapt fast enough to their changing surroundings.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Some changes don't work out and that species dies off, like the Neanderthal's who couldn't adapt to the coming ice age and died out. But changes keep coming constantly to every living organism.

That is exactly my point. Why are supposed transitional species extinct if they were better adapted ? if they are extinct how did they pass on their traits ?

Transitional species evolve, and don't go extinct. Neanderthals weren't a transitional species, they were an offshoot species that died out because they couldn't adapt fast enough to their changing surroundings.

Sure they go extinct or would you like to point out a transitional species from supposed human evolution that is not a chimp and still alive ? We don't know if neanderthals died out because they couldn't adapt or they were consumed by the human population.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It was like I said earlier if we were not selectively breeding dogs or horses or animals that did not stick to their own kind there would be no pure breed. They would return to the mutt in every group of species. But we do have purebreeds in family groups that was not the result of man selectively breeding them,how is that ?What oversaw it ?

 

[Hollie]

It was like I said earlier if we were not selectively breeding dogs or horses or animals that did not stick to their own kind there would be no pure breed. They would return to the mutt in every group of species. But we do have purebreeds in family groups that was not the result of man selectively breeding them,how is that ?What oversaw it ?

Have you signed up for those night courses I advised you about?

Your use of the term "kind" is a biblical reference and has no valid scientific definition.

As you were corrected earlier, selective breeding is the inverse of natural selection. Pure breeds is a completely arbitrary term. There is no such thing as a "pure" Great Dane" or "pure" schnauzer. The physical appearance of these breeds meet an arbitrary definition defined.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It was like I said earlier if we were not selectively breeding dogs or horses or animals that did not stick to their own kind there would be no pure breed. They would return to the mutt in every group of species. But we do have purebreeds in family groups that was not the result of man selectively breeding them,how is that ?What oversaw it ?

Have you signed up for those night courses I advised you about?

Your use of the term "kind" is a biblical reference and has no valid scientific definition.

As you were corrected earlier, selective breeding is the inverse of natural selection. Pure breeds is a completely arbitrary term. There is no such thing as a "pure" Great Dane" or "pure" schnauzer. The physical appearance of these breeds meet an arbitrary definition defined.

How bout you listen to Gregory Mendel because you sure as hell won't listen to people like me that have a background in this area. A boxer only has the genetic data to produce the traits of a boxer. I have told you breeders select traits they would like in the new breed then separate them from the rest of the population until they get what they were looking for and they must keep them breeding separate from the population. As long as you continue breeding a purebreed with the same purebreed that is the traits that will be produced. Why do they only have the genetic data to produce what they are ? I'll answer it for you. Because you are cornering genetic data and breeding out previous genetic information.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Darwin proved the same thing as Mendel with his pigeons.

 

[Hollie]

It was like I said earlier if we were not selectively breeding dogs or horses or animals that did not stick to their own kind there would be no pure breed. They would return to the mutt in every group of species. But we do have purebreeds in family groups that was not the result of man selectively breeding them,how is that ?What oversaw it ?

Have you signed up for those night courses I advised you about?

Your use of the term "kind" is a biblical reference and has no valid scientific definition.

As you were corrected earlier, selective breeding is the inverse of natural selection. Pure breeds is a completely arbitrary term. There is no such thing as a "pure" Great Dane" or "pure" schnauzer. The physical appearance of these breeds meet an arbitrary definition defined.

How bout you listen to Gregory Mendel because you sure as hell won't listen to people like me that have a background in this area. A boxer only has the genetic data to produce the traits of a boxer. I have told you breeders select traits they would like in the new breed then separate them from the rest of the population until they get what they were looking for and they must keep them breeding separate from the population. As long as you continue breeding a purebreed with the same purebreed that is the traits that will be produced. Why do they only have the genetic data to produce what they are ? I'll answer it for you. Because you are cornering genetic data and breeding out previous genetic information.

Your claiming to have a background in "this area" doesn't mean you actually do. A boxer has the genetic formula to produce a boxer because of selective breeding. That's what we call "stating the obvious".

You're not even aware of point you are hoping to make.

 

[BillyP]

Some changes don't work out and that species dies off, like the Neanderthal's who couldn't adapt to the coming ice age and died out. But changes keep coming constantly to every living organism.

That is exactly my point. Why are supposed transitional species extinct if they were better adapted ? if they are extinct how did they pass on their traits ?

Transitional species evolve, and don't go extinct. Neanderthals weren't a transitional species, they were an offshoot species that died out because they couldn't adapt fast enough to their changing surroundings.

Sure they go extinct or would you like to point out a transitional species from supposed human evolution that is not a chimp and still alive ? We don't know if neanderthals died out because they couldn't adapt or they were consumed by the human population.

I was watching a show on neanderthals just last week, they made a pretty good case for neanderthals dying out because of climate change and that genetically, they hadn't mated with humans very much. Was very interesting. But whatever.

Transitional species evolve and keep going, they don't go extinct. But again, whatever. lol. It's just about how we use a certain word.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Some changes don't work out and that species dies off, like the Neanderthal's who couldn't adapt to the coming ice age and died out. But changes keep coming constantly to every living organism.

That is exactly my point. Why are supposed transitional species extinct if they were better adapted ? if they are extinct how did they pass on their traits ?

Transitional species evolve, and don't go extinct. Neanderthals weren't a transitional species, they were an offshoot species that died out because they couldn't adapt fast enough to their changing surroundings.

Sure they go extinct or would you like to point out a transitional species from supposed human evolution that is not a chimp and still alive ? We don't know if neanderthals died out because they couldn't adapt or they were consumed by the human population.

I was watching a show on neanderthals just last week, they made a pretty good case for neanderthals dying out because of climate change and that genetically, they hadn't mated with humans very much. Was very interesting. But whatever.

Transitional species evolve and keep going, they don't go extinct. But again, whatever. lol. It's just about how we use a certain word.

Conjecture is what this theory is based on,not evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It was like I said earlier if we were not selectively breeding dogs or horses or animals that did not stick to their own kind there would be no pure breed. They would return to the mutt in every group of species. But we do have purebreeds in family groups that was not the result of man selectively breeding them,how is that ?What oversaw it ?

Have you signed up for those night courses I advised you about?

Your use of the term "kind" is a biblical reference and has no valid scientific definition.

As you were corrected earlier, selective breeding is the inverse of natural selection. Pure breeds is a completely arbitrary term. There is no such thing as a "pure" Great Dane" or "pure" schnauzer. The physical appearance of these breeds meet an arbitrary definition defined.

How bout you listen to Gregory Mendel because you sure as hell won't listen to people like me that have a background in this area. A boxer only has the genetic data to produce the traits of a boxer. I have told you breeders select traits they would like in the new breed then separate them from the rest of the population until they get what they were looking for and they must keep them breeding separate from the population. As long as you continue breeding a purebreed with the same purebreed that is the traits that will be produced. Why do they only have the genetic data to produce what they are ? I'll answer it for you. Because you are cornering genetic data and breeding out previous genetic information.

Your claiming to have a background in "this area" doesn't mean you actually do. A boxer has the genetic formula to produce a boxer because of selective breeding. That's what we call "stating the obvious".

You're not even aware of point you are hoping to make.

Now that you have finally accepted my assertion return to the questions and answer them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's the same age as I...

Hmmmm......an interesting comparison with dirt.

 

[BillyP]

Some changes don't work out and that species dies off, like the Neanderthal's who couldn't adapt to the coming ice age and died out. But changes keep coming constantly to every living organism.

That is exactly my point. Why are supposed transitional species extinct if they were better adapted ? if they are extinct how did they pass on their traits ?

Transitional species evolve, and don't go extinct. Neanderthals weren't a transitional species, they were an offshoot species that died out because they couldn't adapt fast enough to their changing surroundings.

Sure they go extinct or would you like to point out a transitional species from supposed human evolution that is not a chimp and still alive ? We don't know if neanderthals died out because they couldn't adapt or they were consumed by the human population.

I was watching a show on neanderthals just last week, they made a pretty good case for neanderthals dying out because of climate change and that genetically, they hadn't mated with humans very much. Was very interesting. But whatever.

Transitional species evolve and keep going, they don't go extinct. But again, whatever. lol. It's just about how we use a certain word.

Conjecture is what this theory is based on,not evidence.

evolution is based on fossil evidence. What evidence do you have that a magical being poofed everything into existence?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Some changes don't work out and that species dies off, like the Neanderthal's who couldn't adapt to the coming ice age and died out. But changes keep coming constantly to every living organism.

That is exactly my point. Why are supposed transitional species extinct if they were better adapted ? if they are extinct how did they pass on their traits ?

Transitional species evolve, and don't go extinct. Neanderthals weren't a transitional species, they were an offshoot species that died out because they couldn't adapt fast enough to their changing surroundings.

Sure they go extinct or would you like to point out a transitional species from supposed human evolution that is not a chimp and still alive ? We don't know if neanderthals died out because they couldn't adapt or they were consumed by the human population.

I was watching a show on neanderthals just last week, they made a pretty good case for neanderthals dying out because of climate change and that genetically, they hadn't mated with humans very much. Was very interesting. But whatever.

Transitional species evolve and keep going, they don't go extinct. But again, whatever. lol. It's just about how we use a certain word.

Conjecture is what this theory is based on,not evidence.

evolution is based on fossil evidence. What evidence do you have that a magical being poofed everything into existence?

do you have fossils of the first single celled organism that evolved into a multicelled organism?......