- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,184
- 52,654
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
"Something" and "nothing" are not meaningful concepts in QM.
Extinction of a species only indicates that a change happened too fast for it to adapt. It could be that another species came along that outcompeted it, it could be that its old food sources disappeared, it could be that a space rock or climate change obliterated its entire habitat. You can be perfectly well adapted to a habitat and still struggle to survive if that habitat stops existing.The fact that it's extinct would indicated that something wasn't quite right in its adaptive abilities.
And that's where your assumptions are wrong. I think most of us, myself included, couldn't care less whether or not you believe in God. Or gods.The only thing is, you're here trying to win people away from God...
And here we go again, simplifying a complex and poorly understood phenomenon down to a completely misleading one-liner.A Cambrian Explosion that completely invalidates evolution...
What is the oldest species ever to exist? Surely you don't mean the oldest known fossils of living things, since there ain't no DNA in them, and prokaryotic cells don't have organs...Irreducible complexity of organs and complex DNA even in the oldest species ever to exist?
That's a hypothetical you have no way of evaluating.If evolution were introduced today, it would be laughed out of existence.
I'm a bit leery of simplifications like this. Maybe it's accurate to say that we have a good genetic explanation for the transformation of legs into flippers (or vestiges, as the case may be), but the way you said it sounds like two genes turned land-dwelling ungulates into whales.Whales didn't evolve from dogs, but from artiodactyls. And the genetics have been understood since 2006. The key is Sonic Hedgehog and Hand2.
Strange, in my experience, the more I know the less certain I feel about my knowledge.I would agree completely. Once you know, you know. There is no doubt that can come any longer. Doubt without knowledge is probable, knowledge casts out all doubt. It is a given.
Technically, the mixture of fossils that don't belong together is a chimaera. "Mosaic" does describe a mixture of primitive and derived traits, or more precisely, different traits evolving at different times/rates, so I'd say it's appropriate for at least some transitional forms.A mosaic is more than one fossil together, like Archaeoraptor. Both Archaeopteryx and our friend the platypus are species with intermediate or transitional features.
It's worth noting that embryonic vertebrates generally have webbed feet until late in development. All you have to do to get webbing in an adult is turn off the signals that cause interdigital tissue to die.Interesting that you mentioned the platypus, which is a good example of a mammal that is semi-aquatic much like the earliest whale ancestors must have been. And guess what? It actually does have webbed feet! Imagine that....
I accept common ancestry but not as you present it. DNA shows a common ancestry only within a species.
All humans have a common ancestry; all apes have common ancestry, all dogs have a common ancestry etc.
All plants have DNA. Are they part of our common ancestry?
All life is not connected to each other through the first blob you say was the first life for. What was the first plant life form? How did it come into being?
I know you think you have but you have not presented any biological evidence that makes it possible.
Of course mutation result in changes but not in new traits. They only alter the trait they would have gottend without he mutation. I don't u nderstand why that is so hard to see.
Changes are like brown-eyed parents having blue-eye children. I know that is not causse by a mutation but th principle is the same.
Show me a mutation or a series of mutations that has resulted in a change of species.
I accept common ancestry but not as you present it. DNA shows a common ancestry only within a species.
All life is not connected to each other through the first blob you say was the first life for.
I know you think you have but you have not presented any biological evidence that makes it possible.
Of course mutation result in changes but not in new traits. They only alter the trait they would have gottend without he mutation.
Changes are like brown-eyed parents having blue-eye children. I know that is not causse by a mutation but th principle is the same.
Show me a mutation or a series of mutations that has resulted in a change of species.
Of course they did.
When they were given the choice between recanting these stories or suffering torture and death, they chose the latter because their made up story was just too good.
It all makes (im)perfect sense. In the words of Tom Petty, "It don't make no difference to me, 'cause you believe what you wanna believe."
It does unless you have a better explanation as to how the universe came into being. If you don't likek the deity answer, present your own.
Since matter cannot create itself out of nothing, it must have a Creator.
If you don't know how it came into existence, then can you say I am wrong?
Now you said in an earlier post that God cannot come out of nothing, and I don't think I answered that. God is eternal.
You admitted you don't know, so how can you know his explanation is not right? What evidence do you have that it is a metaphore?
None, not one of the fossils you posted is an intermediate. They are all distinctly separate.
They don't. Even assuming your quotes aren't taken out of context (and that's a very generous assumption based on my experience), you are brandishing the views of two guys out of millions in this field. To support the claim that "most" acknowledge whatever nonsense you said about the fossil record. That is a giant evidence fail, plain and simple.Are you really not aware that even most hard core evos acknowledge the fossil record does not support evolution?
You have no idea what this quote is about, do you?"I regard the failure tofind a clear 'vector of progressss' in life's history as the most puzling fact of the fossil record...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that doe snot really display it."(Stephen J Gould, "The Ediacaran Experiment," Natural Hisstory(Vol 93, Feb 1984).
For a removal so profound [i.e. ~96% of all animal species], we must seriously consider the possibility that entire groups will be lost for purely random reasons.
[Punk eek posits that] the pattern of normal times is not one of continuous adaptive improvement within lineages. Rather, species form rapidly in geological perspective (thousands of years) and tend to be highly stable for millions of years thereafter. Evolutionary success must be assessed among species themselves, not at the traditional Darwinian level of struggling organisms within populations. The reasons that species succeed are many and varied--high rates of speciation and strong resistance to extinction, for example--and often involve no reference to traditional expectations for improvement in morphological design.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Whatever accumulates by punctuated equilibrium in normal times can be broken up, dismantled, reset, and dispersed by mass extinction. If punctuated equilibrium upset traditional expectations, mass extinction is even worse. Organisms cannot track or anticipate the environmental triggers of mass extinction. No matter how well they adapt themselves to environmental ranges of normal times, they must take their chances in catastrophic moments. And if extinctions can demolish more than 90 percent of all species, then we must be losing groups forever as a result of pure bad luck among a few clinging survivors designed for another world.[/FONT]
Since when is Gould anyone's "hero of the faith"? In fact, Gould is a pretty controversial figure who made some very good points, but also held some rather extreme opinions that aren't generally accepted by the community.Most evos acknowledge that the fossil record does not support evolution. One of your heros in the faith, Stephen Gould says, "I find the failure to find a clear 'vectdor of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it."
For Pete's sake, people, can you at least get Gingerich's name right? Copy-paste if you're not sure.Your whale expert, Gringich, puts a dog-like animal in the linage of whales.
Do tell me about that. What known genetics does it contradict?What genetrics causes a dog-like land amimal doing quite well on land to lose it legs and nose and acquire fins and a blowhole. That actually contradits know genetics.
Now, how do you know whether Pakicetus had fur?Look at them for goodness sake. There is no simialarity between a hipo and packicetus except both had 4 legs and a tail. One had fur, one didn't.
Why are we suddenly talking about hippos? Hippos are not the ancestors of whales.How did packicetus lose it legs? How did the thick, heavy hipo llegs become lim legs?
No. It was about the fossil record refuting the time honoured dogma of even distribution of evolutionary change over time. That's all phyletic gradualism means. It's simply the idea that species turn into new species via a slow, continuous, gradual process. Eldredge and Gould argued that instead most change is concentrated around relatively rapid speciation events.Punctuate equilibra wa snot aboaut trends. It wa about the fossil record refuting the time honored dogma of gradualism.
Eldredge and Gould said:The central concept of allopatric speciation is that new species can arise only when a small local population becomes isolated at the margin of the geographic range of its parent species. [...] As a consequence of the allopatric theory, new fossil species do not originate in the place where their ancestors lived. It is extremely improbable that we shall be able to trace the gradual splitting of a lineage merely by following a certain species up through a local rock column.
Another consequence of the theory of allopatric processes follows: since selection always maintains an equilibrium between populations and their local environment, the morphological features that distinguish the descendant species from its ancestor are present close after, if not before, the onset of genetic isolation.
This simply does not follow. Large-scale transitions involve multiple species and often large geographic areas, and take much longer than individual speciation events. Thus none of Eldredge and Gould's points about species to species transitions need apply to them.If they aer lacking at the species level, you cnnot say they ar present in the larger level.
I can't parse what your point is here.I didn't say it doesn't translate to all animal. It does. Thatg is the point. Each species has its own unique DNA. Even more distinct, it can tell if we are related.
How does the DNA of two unrelated mammals look? Do you think mice and rats are related?it can tell tht we are not related to apes or chimps or anyothe mammal. If we had the DNA from pakitecus it would show it is not related to hippos.
Pedantry alert! The start codon(s) do(es) actually code for an amino acid, methionine in the case of the standard genetic code. AFAICT, in alternative codes, while the amino acid is not always methionine, there is always a translation for start codons. Also, the number of starts and stops varies by code, but there is only one start in the standard code most eukaryotes use.A gene can be divided into 3-base-pair segments called codons, each codon associated with a specific amino acid, except for six. These are three "start" codons and three "stop" codons.
I thought it was Latin for "out of nothing". Admittedly, my Latin is a bit rusty.The moon was created ex nihilo, which is Latin for GOD DID IT.
Oy, that's a bit rich from you.If you are not even familiar with mutations 101, and genetics 101, why are you even here discussing the issue?
They are, for the most part, gotten encoded in their DNA. So yes, you are talking about DNA.I am not talking about DNA. I am talking about how traits are gotten by the offspring.
But you are related biologically to all human beings, even in the YEC view. At the very least, we are all descendants of Noah.While our DNA is different, tells us that we are not related biologically but we are related by species---homo sapian.
Just to let you know that this is almost the definition of a biological species. The only difference is that the biological species definition specifies fertile offspring. So horses and donkeys are the same kind but not the same biological species."Kinds" can mate and produce offspring. Now give me your definition and tell why mine is not right.
If you knew anything about the current state of evolutionary biology, you'd understand that no one expects evolutionary novelty to appear out of nothing. New traits are expected to arise from the modification of existing ones. For example, the eyespots of some butterflies are generated by an old genetic circuit that usually functions to partition the developing wings of insects into different regions. Just like these genes normally mark out a sharp boundary between the front and back halves of a wing, they can mark out a sharply defined centre (focus) for an eyespot.It can be inheriterd but blood is not a new trait. Both the albino and the hemiphilliac were going to get blood. The mutation only altered the blood they received.
If you don't understand anything, ask. I'm sure there are people here who are able and willing to explain things.Most of that article was over my science pay grade.
Observed Instances of SpeciationTo get more technical would not serve any purpose. If you believe all of what they said will result in evolution into a new species, that's fine. I just don't believe it is genetically possible. If it was, why don't we see new species today?
Atheist also believe in the supernatural , for example Frankencell. I can't think of anything more supernatural than a mindless purposeless universe creating a mind.How is it better? You are postulating, as an explanation, the existence of a supernatural entity, without bothering at all with how you know that such an entity exists or how it brings universes into being.
Frankencell
Wrong! Sickle cell anaemia is an inherited TRAIT amongst many Africans. This disease is the result of a mutation that allowed the sufferers to become resistant to malaria. Children are born with this trait that gives them a better chance of surviving.
BIG BANG! Now get over it!
But we do have Bush dogs that have partially webbed toes, which allow them to swim more efficiently: Bush dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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?