Evolution of new species of finch observed

[Stranger]

if you have no answer just say so...

I really don't see why I should spend any more time on this when half the time you don't read the answers, and when you do get an answer and read it, you change the subject and dishonestly paste things in that you clearly don't understand.

[Nearly Sane]

those are my own words....

So you wrote them on the websites linked to by Stranger?

[Grace of God]

I really don't see why I should spend any more time on this when half the time you don't read the answers, and when you do get an answer and read it, you change the subject and dishonestly paste things in that you clearly don't understand.

again, if you can't answer just say so... you seem easily shaken on a subject you consider to be an indisputable fact..

[Grace of God]

So you wrote them on the websites linked to by Stranger?

I wrote the original article...

[Maeght]

I wrote the original article...

What are your scientific qualifications?

[Grace of God]

What are your scientific qualifications?

why would i give personal information on a forum??

[Maeght]

why would i give personal information on a forum??

You can say enough so you won't be identified surely.

[Grace of God]

You can say enough so you won't be identified surely.

I will not give any personal details...

debate the subject ...

[Nearly Sane]

I will not give any personal details...

debate the subject ...

You mean apart from being Jonathan M blogger?

[Maeght]

I will not give any personal details...

debate the subject ...

I am not qualified enough to debate details, and have not attempted to. I do have a scientific degree but not in relevant fields. Hence why I have asked you about your understanding of the scientific method. You haven't demonstrated one as yet.

[Robbie]

Do you remember your first post on here GoG? If not, this is what you said.

'Hi , I'm a bible believing Christian and i'm looking forward to some very interesting debate, hope we can debate and get along.. '

What happened?

I wondered the same.

[quote SteveH]
And another thing, GoG: stop using two question marks at the end of questions. It's bloody annoying.
[/quote]

Not to mention the ellipsis.......

[Grace of God]

I am not qualified enough to debate details, and have not attempted to. I do have a scientific degree but not in relevant fields. Hence why I have asked you about your understanding of the scientific method. You haven't demonstrated one as yet.

perhaps you are not qualified enough to have noticed it...

[SteveH]

but isn't sexual reproduction less effective in many ways so why would it be a helpful evolutionary device, it wastes resources assuming it produces half and half male and female only half can further produce as opposed to asexual reproduction, so assuming that asexual would produce at probably twice the rate so asexual reproduction would be far more prolific. when you consider that the species that use sexual reproduction only perpetuate half of their successful genotype to transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction is to gamble with 50% of there successful genotype, Given that the whole purpose of natural selection is the preservation of those organisms which pass on their successful genes, this strikes at the heart of evolutionary rationale.

All of that is complete and utter bollocks, but even if it was true and sexual reproductionwas wasteful and less efficient than asexual, why, on your view, did God introduce it? If it's a problem for evoultionists, it's a problem for creationists as well.

[Grace of God]

I wondered the same.

Not to mention the ellipsis.......

getting along is always good, what i like is the opportunity to debate a subject without it tainting every debate after that..

i often disagree strongly on one subject but still can agree on others, some people seem incapable of doing this and once they know you are Christian they just disagree for the sake of it and judge everything you say as "not very Christian", it's childish and very tedious....

[Grace of God]

All of that is complete and utter bollocks, but even if it was true and sexual reproductionwas wasteful and less efficient than asexual, why, on your view, did God introduce it? If it's a problem for evoultionists, it's a problem for creationists as well.

it is no problem for creationists at all, we were made by God as we are, woman was made as a helper, procreation is the way it  was meant to be...

[Stranger]

I wrote the original article...

I don't believe you. For a start, "Jonathan M." knows that sentences start with a capital letter and questions only need one question mark at the end.

[Maeght]

perhaps you are not qualified enough to have noticed it...

No.

[Maeght]

getting along is always good, what i like is the opportunity to debate a subject ......

Then try doing it.

[Stranger]

All of that is complete and utter bollocks...

It's cobbled together from this article (the "What Are The Problems?" section): Sex, the Queen of Problems in Evolutionary Biology. Evolution News & Science Today is an ID propaganda site and the article is the usual mix of bollocks and part truth. However, there are (or have been) legitimate questions about why sexual reproduction is so widespread.

As I said there has been much written about it, for example: Sexual Reproduction and the Evolution of Sex.

Basically more realistic mathematical models have revealed all sorts of circumstances in which sexual reproduction is advantageous.

[splashscuba]

Saying that wings would be good, seems to imply that evolution has targets or plans.   Err, no.

Quite. Mutations occur. Those that give an advantage or are neutral will get passed on. Those that are negative i.e. provide a disadvantage, don't. Advantage and disadvantage, in this context, mean how mutations aid the passing on of DNA. That's it.

[SteveH]

Quite. Mutations occur. Those that give an advantage or are neutral will get passed on. Those that are negative i.e. provide a disadvantage, don't. Advantage and disadvantage, in this context, mean how mutations aid the passing on of DNA. That's it.

But there are limits to what mutations can achieve, which explains the many design faults in organisms, if you assume design. I don't think any mutation could give a vertebrate six limbs instead of the standard four, so, as I said earlier, if humans were to have wings, we'd have to do without arms, which would be a retrograde step, if you ask me.

[floo]

there are facts perhaps you are just so stupid you do not see and understand them...

What facts?

[SusanDoris]

What facts?

Funny, isn't it, how, whenever believers are asked for facts, they never seem to appear!  

[floo]

Funny, isn't it, how, whenever believers are asked for facts, they never seem to appear!

Now there's a surprise!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Funny, isn't it, how, whenever believers are asked for facts, they never seem to appear!

What facts can I oblige you with?