Excuse me, is that relevant to evolution?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's go over this again, shall we, about chances--
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
The reference I gave answered your question. . . . specifically, YES, there is inbreeding among the various groups (species and subspecies of bats.
'natural hybridization between species and subspecies' is the same as 'interbreeding among the various groups of bats.'
Yes. in the sources as referenced,
Naw...you didn't But since you think you did, you have a nice day.Bye for now...or as a decent person, why not just give the answer again IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
I prefer per reviewed scientific articles than my own ;opinion
gnostic
The Lost One
Naw...you didn't But since you think you did, you have a nice day.
@Subduction Zone did answer your questions with explanations.
The problems are, you don't often understand people's explanations, especially when they correcting your mistakes. The explanation that SZ have given you, are often to clarify where you got it wrong...BUT you often ignore people (not just SZ) when they tried to help you.
As to answering people provided "in your own words".
Sure, that's important, but it is often better to support "your own words" with relevant scientific sources (which would include "information" or "data" about the "evidence") that are peer-reviewed.
Quoting sources are good thing, because it showed that it isn't just one's unsubstantiated personal opinions.
But if anyone should copy-and-paste peer-reviewed sources, whether these are explanations or data, that person should cite where the sources come from.
For instance, should you quote the passage from the bible, you should cite the book, chapter & verse number(s), and maybe even include the translation (eg KJV, NRSV, etc).
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
or your own understanding of what the authors are saying in these peer-reviewed scientific articles? I would imagine that in order to agree with a scientific opinion, you'd have to understand what it means and how the research got to that point.
Your language here seems to suggest that science isn't credible, or that we readers might be wrong in what we understand. You are trying to lay groundwork for doubt without actually making any direct points nor offer examples. This is a discrimination you won't apply to your own religious views.
It's not really accurate to call results in science an opinion. Science isn't coke versis pepsi. The results in science are at a very high level of accuracy, 99.95%.
And we see what you are doing here by suggesting non-experts can't understand what experts are saying. Generally a lay person can read the abstracts of a study and understand what the results are.
This does not make sense. This one research artie that studied the genetics of hybridiztion or interbreeding between to bat species.
The title of the articleis specific. Hybridization is the same as interbreeding.
"Investigating Hybridization between the Two Sibling Bat Species Myotis myotis and M. blythii from Guano in a Natural Mixed Maternity Colony"
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Brian2
Veteran Member
Science does not know what life is or if abiogenesis happened or if evolution happened the ways or to the extent that science presumes it did.
Science does not know that in the exact same conditions on a twin planet in the universe and given the same length of time, that life would(edit) have begun.
Are you saying that science knows these things or did you just decide to attack me because you know what I said is the truth?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You have no problem with plenty of species of bats all being bats, but somehow you do have a problem with a bunch of species of primates all being primates.
Yet both "primates" and "bats" (= chiroptera) are on the level of Order.
If all those species are "bats" with a common ancestor, then why should primates be any different?
gnostic
The Lost One
From my experience with you and with other creationists, the word, “truth”, is not the word I would use in regards to your views and opinions.
I have never met an informative (or knowledgeable) or honest creationist, whenever it comes to discussions or debates on anything relating to biology.
The problems with creationists are, they are incapable of recognizing when they are in error, and worse still, they are incapable of learning from their mistakes.
This isn’t about theism vs atheism, Brian. It is about your lack of understanding of even basic biology, because a number of theists don’t agree with your stance on Evolution, and even in Abiogenesis.
Like every other creationists, here, you don’t even understand the basic concepts of logic or of evidence.
Neither. I do disagree with you that considering the fallible nature of humans no one KNOWS the truth including you. The problem with claims of KNOWING the truth in the religions of the world is that there are many diverse and conflicting claims of fallible humans KNOWING the truth.
Science does not claim to KNOW the truth. By the objective verifiable evidence the knowledge of science is reliable and consistent, willing to change and evolve when new information becomes available and the consensus of scientists concerning the knowledge of science is 95%+. The claims of the many diverse and conflicting views of religions knows no consistency nor consensus.
Last edited: