Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Did Darwin Believe in Today's "Evolution"?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="StarTemple" data-source="post: 66963888" data-attributes="member: 367539"><p>At the genus level, and after. The complexity and multi-layering of the DNA depth is why genus cannot "super-adapt" according to the same concept as adaptation in a base species. Its too big of a change, in relation to the limited age of the species. This is also why there are millions of "missing links", the never did exist in the first place.</p><p></p><p>====</p><p></p><p>I am not trying to be incredulous, I am trying to demonstrate how visually driven "science", like "evolutionary psuedo-biology" is the incredulousness now facing hard DNA data (and its very real structures) being embodied in the genomic reality of that data.</p><p></p><p>So in the current taxonomic model (Wiki-Biological classification):</p><p></p><p>We see this:</p><p></p><p>(1) </p><p></p><p></p><p>And now we see this:</p><p></p><p>(2)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Thus "<em>inferred</em> evolutionary relatedness (based either on classical evidence of morphology, chemistry, physiology, ecology or molecular evidence" has unfortunately been based on literally visual assessment and imagined relatedness to arrive at that "inference". </p><p></p><p>It becomes, in time, based on opinion of "this looks like that so it must be this which also looks like that", which opinions turn into myths disguised as "inferred evolutionary relatedness".</p><p></p><p>Now this:</p><p></p><p>"Molecular phylogenetics, which uses DNA sequences as data" which "has driven many recent revisions" is able to make those "revisions" because real DATA from real DNA mapped structures are making those changes necessary, not by guess work, but by genomic realities unfolding daily.</p><p></p><p>FOR THE FIRST TIME EVOLUTIONISTS ARE BEING CONFRONTED BY HARD DATA, in the DNA and the genome itself, that is now calling into question much of the taxonomic structure "and is likely to continue doing so." And with that those "inferences" will be flushed as well. But this will take time, be patient.</p><p></p><p>In that development that "mechanism that halts adaptation at the species level" or "mechanism that causes adaptation at the genus level" will be, imo, closer to actually being understood. Evolution is not understanding in the least, it is total fantasy that had a time of the required ignorance to back it, but now the genome REALITY will reverse much of that fantastic tale.</p><p></p><p>All I am saying is genomic science and its actual structure based on the realities in DNA of all the species, will in time cause the current evolutionary model to be questioned more and more as this goes on. </p><p></p><p>Just because an ape "resembles" a man, does not mean in the DNA it is most closely related, a dolphin may have a more closely related brain.</p><p></p><p>Not saying this is the case, but that advanced genomic mapping and cross relationships IN THE DNA, not in the visuals, will affect the whole system of biological classification in astounding ways, imo.</p><p></p><p>Unfortunately the incredulous "evolution" inertia of literally hearsay "evidence", based on literally visual assessment, will slow down geneticists at that macro level of genomic theorization, because evolutionary precepts and pretexts obscure the actual reality in the DNA, making it harder to "see" what these things will actually be saying in the cross relatedness of the genomes. </p><p></p><p>But when they flush that evolution paradigm completely, then the clearer picture will emerge, as "many recent revisions" this has already caused, is truly just the tip of this massive iceberg yet to come.</p><p></p><p>As with hydrogen versus uranium, the DATA is what will be the impediment to modern evolution, their "explanation" will not be present in the progressive data, and what it took to program that data at that genomic depth. (also why in theory a new genus emergence requires more data than a sub-species emergence. </p><p></p><p>But again, evolutionary illusions are also affecting this assumption with their current taxonomic model, which is partly also pure fantasy, how much so remains to be seen. Deep DNA and the whole genomic picture that will emerge in time, may very well destroy all "biology", no joke, evolution may be the least of their problems)</p><p></p><p>I'm not trying to describe the new paradigm, just predicting someone will and it will turn "evolution" on its ear as far as being a random occurrence, even "evolution" required an intelligent data source, not necessarily God, but not excluding him, but that rogue angels would also have the means to understand this data and make the necessary "changes" as well. </p><p></p><p>In any event something well beyond human is needed to have programmed this data in, in the first place, it cannot just "spontaneously" produce intelligence, without base intellect as its source data store, plain and simple. You cannot get an intelligent computer from a junkyard, which is what evolution has many believing.</p><p></p><p>The more they dig into and attempt to cross assemble the whole genomic super-structure of planet Earth, the more complexity of DESIGN will emerge and has already emerged. </p><p></p><p>Data cannot simply pop out of thin air with no cause whatsoever, and now they are getting down to the actual data, not phantoms of the anti-science of evolution, and that will continue to cause problems to the modern theory of evolution, it cannot "adapt" in its present form, and it is getting buried in real data, big data, oceans of it, which is saying something else entirely.</p><p></p><p>The more of the mega-picture they paint with this real data, the more the evolution picture looks like chicken scratch, because that is exactly what it has always been.</p><p></p><p>That is the bitter reality of the extinction of evolution, it will have to adapt to describe the "master programmer" in the process, big genome data makes pure "presto" evolution literally impossible and having required pure magic.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="StarTemple, post: 66963888, member: 367539"] At the genus level, and after. The complexity and multi-layering of the DNA depth is why genus cannot "super-adapt" according to the same concept as adaptation in a base species. Its too big of a change, in relation to the limited age of the species. This is also why there are millions of "missing links", the never did exist in the first place. ==== I am not trying to be incredulous, I am trying to demonstrate how visually driven "science", like "evolutionary psuedo-biology" is the incredulousness now facing hard DNA data (and its very real structures) being embodied in the genomic reality of that data. So in the current taxonomic model (Wiki-Biological classification): We see this: (1) And now we see this: (2) Thus "[I]inferred[/I] evolutionary relatedness (based either on classical evidence of morphology, chemistry, physiology, ecology or molecular evidence" has unfortunately been based on literally visual assessment and imagined relatedness to arrive at that "inference". It becomes, in time, based on opinion of "this looks like that so it must be this which also looks like that", which opinions turn into myths disguised as "inferred evolutionary relatedness". Now this: "Molecular phylogenetics, which uses DNA sequences as data" which "has driven many recent revisions" is able to make those "revisions" because real DATA from real DNA mapped structures are making those changes necessary, not by guess work, but by genomic realities unfolding daily. FOR THE FIRST TIME EVOLUTIONISTS ARE BEING CONFRONTED BY HARD DATA, in the DNA and the genome itself, that is now calling into question much of the taxonomic structure "and is likely to continue doing so." And with that those "inferences" will be flushed as well. But this will take time, be patient. In that development that "mechanism that halts adaptation at the species level" or "mechanism that causes adaptation at the genus level" will be, imo, closer to actually being understood. Evolution is not understanding in the least, it is total fantasy that had a time of the required ignorance to back it, but now the genome REALITY will reverse much of that fantastic tale. All I am saying is genomic science and its actual structure based on the realities in DNA of all the species, will in time cause the current evolutionary model to be questioned more and more as this goes on. Just because an ape "resembles" a man, does not mean in the DNA it is most closely related, a dolphin may have a more closely related brain. Not saying this is the case, but that advanced genomic mapping and cross relationships IN THE DNA, not in the visuals, will affect the whole system of biological classification in astounding ways, imo. Unfortunately the incredulous "evolution" inertia of literally hearsay "evidence", based on literally visual assessment, will slow down geneticists at that macro level of genomic theorization, because evolutionary precepts and pretexts obscure the actual reality in the DNA, making it harder to "see" what these things will actually be saying in the cross relatedness of the genomes. But when they flush that evolution paradigm completely, then the clearer picture will emerge, as "many recent revisions" this has already caused, is truly just the tip of this massive iceberg yet to come. As with hydrogen versus uranium, the DATA is what will be the impediment to modern evolution, their "explanation" will not be present in the progressive data, and what it took to program that data at that genomic depth. (also why in theory a new genus emergence requires more data than a sub-species emergence. But again, evolutionary illusions are also affecting this assumption with their current taxonomic model, which is partly also pure fantasy, how much so remains to be seen. Deep DNA and the whole genomic picture that will emerge in time, may very well destroy all "biology", no joke, evolution may be the least of their problems) I'm not trying to describe the new paradigm, just predicting someone will and it will turn "evolution" on its ear as far as being a random occurrence, even "evolution" required an intelligent data source, not necessarily God, but not excluding him, but that rogue angels would also have the means to understand this data and make the necessary "changes" as well. In any event something well beyond human is needed to have programmed this data in, in the first place, it cannot just "spontaneously" produce intelligence, without base intellect as its source data store, plain and simple. You cannot get an intelligent computer from a junkyard, which is what evolution has many believing. The more they dig into and attempt to cross assemble the whole genomic super-structure of planet Earth, the more complexity of DESIGN will emerge and has already emerged. Data cannot simply pop out of thin air with no cause whatsoever, and now they are getting down to the actual data, not phantoms of the anti-science of evolution, and that will continue to cause problems to the modern theory of evolution, it cannot "adapt" in its present form, and it is getting buried in real data, big data, oceans of it, which is saying something else entirely. The more of the mega-picture they paint with this real data, the more the evolution picture looks like chicken scratch, because that is exactly what it has always been. That is the bitter reality of the extinction of evolution, it will have to adapt to describe the "master programmer" in the process, big genome data makes pure "presto" evolution literally impossible and having required pure magic. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Did Darwin Believe in Today's "Evolution"?
Top
Bottom