Well, not you, obviously.
They might live there, they might not. It depends on their ecological niche.
Validity of Micro/macro-evolution idea
- Thread starter RoyLennigan
- Start date
Well, not you, obviously.
They might live there, they might not. It depends on their ecological niche.
What about their ecological niche would have to change to force them to live in the water?
Who is forcing who to live in water? you have strange ideas. If a fish wants to live on land he may do so, although his life on land may be shortlived.
GeoffP said a change in the ecological niche could force them to live in water, so I asked him what kind of change would that be, right spur?
Hey silly bugger. You have the answer in your own post:
Yeh, so what kind of change?
a change in the ecological niche
You prefer the system of unchanging species and static environments, then?
That seems likely...not.
Could he exploit the abundance of water - which some call an "ocean" - for the purposes of travel and feeding? Would you allow him to do that? Could a bear that happened to live near water and developed webbing either incrementally or all-at-once use this newfound power - much like a chimp tapping away at his home-office PC - for some profound purpose, such as beligerent commentary?
Man.
Beligerent? You're the one who said you don't know if I look like Homo Habilis or Australopithecus, and now you equate me with a chimp, so save it KG (Kingergarten GeoffP).
Ignorance on a subject is not necessarily because of stupidity, do you see the difference?
Ignorance just means lacking knowledge, and KG was in response to your monkey line about me, and so it goes.
I would be happy to deal with the scientific community directly - dealing with it indirectly, through your selection and processing, is a deflection of effort and a waste of time.saquist said:
You're here, they're not.
If you don't know what you are talking about, you can't pick good authorities to talk for you. Since your choice of authority is no better than your own understanding allows, why bother choosing authorities? I assure you they do not convince in themselves, and even a simple argument from fact might.
apparently not, for not only do you waste your time but you also have attempted to completely evade there statements buy dismissing them as irrelevant and inconsequential to evolution. You contradict yourself and not for the first time.
Very astute.
My selection process of "authorities and facts" is a collection of known contradictions, unanswered question. What I know over your asertions is that you do not wish to answer this contradictions and vagueries of the "fact" of evolution.
And don't bother to be so obtuse as to what those vagueries are....You will only reveal a certain amount of ineptitude on your part of evassiveness if you had any information to contest these persons I believe you and river-wind would have done so...Now you argue on style and delivery....
Yes, it's shocking the depths to which the Darwinists will sink due to their lack of cogent responses, just insults and hyperbole, for lack of anything better to say.
It disturbs me the ..."dangling"...that goes on in relation to this topic. The stalling. The questions have been risen, The contradictions outline the sources hightlighted and now we await a response to directly counters this information.
Reasonable doubt has certainly been raised. The odds and the failures of evolutionary experiments in the labs of the world...Where is macro evolution...show not adaptation, and natural selection...let's not waste time on mutations that deliever no helpful genetic information and retreat not to the static remains of the fossil record which couldn't tell a story or processes for the fact we're dealing with dead inanimate fossils.
Reasonable doubt has certainly been raised. The odds and the failures of evolutionary experiments in the labs of the world...Where is macro evolution...show not adaptation, and natural selection...let's not waste time on mutations that deliever no helpful genetic information and retreat not to the static remains of the fossil record which couldn't tell a story or processes for the fact we're dealing with dead inanimate fossils.