You still have not read Genesis 1, have you?
Gen 1:28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Regarding natural selection vs macroevolution, see how many times the phrase ‘after his/their kind’ is used. Ten times iirc.
You dont have to do anything for me. Since you wouldnt provide a cite to back your claims in the GQ thread, and continue to refuse to cite anything here, im not expecting much from you going forward. I already clarified what i was asking for.
Obligate symbiotic relationships are NOT the same as mutualistic relationships. One involves necessity for survival, the other does not.
To anyone it may concern: please cite observational evidence of how an obligate symbiotic relationship has developed over time. Thank you.
Actually, you are making the assertion and Marley23 is merely denying it. As you have presented no evidence for your assertion Marley23 need present no evidence for his denial.
If you do have a cite for your assertion I would be interested in reading it.
I made no such claim, you inferred that based on your sound reasoning, which i commend you for.
‘Mixotricha forms many symbiotic relationships. Like its relatives, including Trichonympha, it lives in the gut of termites and helps them digest cellulose, a major component of the wood they eat. Without Mixotricha, its host termites could not survive.’
:shrugs: Sounds reasonable to me, except for the God loving us part. Theist humans often think we’re the center of the Theological Scheme because we’re self-important. Many would rather believe in no god than gods that don’t–well–worship us, and many would rather disregard science and history than not believe in gods that worship us.
I assure you I did not go to school before 1968. I eagerly await your cite that I did.
Yes, that’s what Creationists keep saying. Biologists disagree, but who are you gonna believe?
They are not visibly external in snakes either until the mating process begins. A few shows of the croc hunter would clear this up for you.
You probably dont think its possible (due to your presuppositions) that some biologists are creationists.
Snakes are not related to whales in any way. Where’s your cite those bones are used for reproduction?
Credible ones who know what they’re talking about and enjoy broad consensus? No, I don’t.
No, you’re the one claiming that “public science books” (by which I presume you mean science textbooks used in public schools) do state Big Bang and abiogenesis theories as fact, so you’re the one who needs to back that claim up with cites.
Here’s a counterexample: an 8th grade science textbook used in Vigo County public schools in Indiana, available online at this link, gives quite a good age-appropriate account of evolution and solar-system astronomy, but never even mentions either the origin of life on earth or the origin of the universe itself.
Where’s your example of even one actual public school science textbook that presents either the Big Bang or abiogenesis as fact?
The whale bones being used for reproduction thing is a standard creationist lie. I’ve never seen anyone produce the slightest shred of evidence for it being anything more than pulled out of thin air. But hey, since they think that’s how the entire planet arose, I guess that makes sense for them.
Obligate symbiotic relationships are a subgroup of mutualistic relationships. There is a complete gradation between mutualistic relationships that are facultative on the part of both parties; ones that are obligate on the part of one but facultative on the other; and ones that are obligate for both. Some symbiotic relationships can shift between being mutualistic to being parasitic.
There is no conceptual difference between the evolution of facultative mutualistic relationships and obligate ones. Obligate ones obviously went through an earlier facultative stage. So there’s no need to single out obligate ones as requiring some sort of special explanation. The very fact that you are trying to make this distinction shows you don’t have any idea what you are talking about.
By the way, how about answering the questions I asked before?
Let me rephrase- the books are clear.
You might not believe there is a conceptual difference between the evolution of mutualistic relationships and obligate ones, but there is an observed difference. The observations are what i am requesting to be cited, if possible. Smeghead seemed to realize why.
BTW, you still have not cited an obligate symbiotic relationship developing over time, as originally requested. First things first, please.
How do you think whales reproduce? Do you happen to have a bunch of videos recording it? Im guessing no.
Check Prentice Hall to begin.
Is this supposed to imply ‘you don’t know how whales breed, so I can say it happens however I like?’ Because that’s what it implies. Anyway it’s not that hard to find YouTube videos of whales breeding. It is hard to find a credible explanation of how these tiny bones have anything to do with whales reproducing.
I will get specific editions for you, give me some time. Thanks.