Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There are no absolute certainties, but when there are multiple lines of evidence that are consistent with the existing explanatory framework, and people reasonably well-informed about the evidence and the framework consider it to be beyond reasonable doubt, and there is no scientifically adequate competing hypothesis, then I think it's justified - with the usual provisos.What you have presented is a suggestive path of "evolutionism" Just because something is similar doesn't meen this evolved from that.
Do you know how many species of bat there are?
I just did, but you can't do the math.
Once again, complexity as it applies to molecular biology is defined mathematically. Just saying "it's too complex" is ignorant nonsense.
If someone did it would be noble prize material. In the meantime all they can do is complain the genetic code isn't really a code, which it is.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-skeptical-zone-asks-what-is-a-code/
Or have the same properties as language. Which it does:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-013-1394-1
Ummmm we already have, multiple times.
Mutations happen all the time, EVERY birth has mutations, over time they add up, and ocasionally hit something novel, some times bad, but most of those never survive to even be born.
Get a few neutral mutations that don't effect the gene, but add a mutation that benefits from the neutral and bang, new novel feature. These things add up. Plus most things in evolution especially from monkeys to humans doesn't require massive changes to alot of things, just minor changes to what is already there.
Keep in mind we all know your answer failed which means you didn't demonstrate anything.I don't need to demonstrate anything. You asked a question and I answered.
Considering most mutations are harmful, whils some considered as neutral....and considering even the evo scientist admitt so-called beneficial mutations are extremely rare...you coloring book description fails.Mutate, survive, breed, repeat.
It's not hard and it's not rocket science.
Sure. It is different which is a strong indication it evolved independently. Many species use a primitive form of echolocation; even humans can do it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation
There are no absolute certainties, but when there are multiple lines of evidence that are consistent with the existing explanatory framework, and people reasonably well-informed about the evidence and the framework consider it to be beyond reasonable doubt, and there is no scientifically adequate competing hypothesis, then I think it's justified - with the usual provisos.
Typical christian propaganda.
Typical evo reply......attack the presenter rather than the science presented.Typical christian propaganda.
And using Ian Juby videos counts as cruel and unusual punishment. He certainly isn't an expert in anything, except maybe in making a fool of himself.
Where is your evidence that it couldn't? Show us the math.
Are you aware that Ian Juby has no relevant credentials.
Not a relevant question. Mutations do not directly cause evolutionary variation.OK, supply me with your numbers....what percentage of mutations are considered as beneficial? Lets use your numbers.
Are you aware that Ian Juby has no relevant credentials.
Not a relevant question. Mutations do not directly cause evolutionary variation.
I think you miss the point.A muppet could have presented the information.....It's the information you need to respond to. Not Juby.
The question is whether a continuous-time Markov process can produce a specified degree of Kolmgorov complexity. You asserted that it cannot. The source of variation needs to be gone into, but it was not the substance of your assertion. If you can prove your point mathematically, then the source of variation is irrelevant.Sooooooooooooooo, this means you have no number. You simply ASSUME that it can happen.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?