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.
Ok tr
He so here were the three for me minus wiki
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00302
How Quantum Physics Can Teach Biologists About Evolution
Evolution quantum mechanics - creation.com
Which one of these three sounds credible?
[Biologists] cite radiocarbon dating to show that Earth is billions of years old, not a few thousand years old, as some creationists would have it.
i think you refer to genes which contradict the phylogenetic tree. indeed we have many of them but evolutionists "solve" this problem by claiming for different selection pressure or convergent evolution. for instance: the gene prestin is closer between dolphins and some bats than between dolphins and baleen whales. it make no sense under evolution theory, so scientists solve this by convergent evolution. but this is just an ad hoc explanation rather than a scientific one.
(image from https://www.researchgate.net/figure...olocating-bats-and-cetaceans-A_fig3_237098425)
Right? LolI stopped reading 'How Quantum Physics Can Teach Biologists About Evolution when I got to the beginning of the seventh paragraph, which says
Every schoolchild knows (or ought to know) that the half-life of carbon-14 is 5730±40 years and that radiocarbon dating is possible only to ages of about 50,000 years, not 'billions of years'.
I stopped reading 'How Quantum Physics Can Teach Biologists About Evolution when I got to the beginning of the seventh paragraph, which says
Every schoolchild knows (or ought to know) that the half-life of carbon-14 is 5730±40 years and that radiocarbon dating is possible only to ages of about 50,000 years, not 'billions of years'.
We can deal with this unrelated subject after you address your previous incorrect assertions: there is no genetic evidence for evolution, and GULO is a problem for evolution because bats, guinea pigs and primates all have the same gene. Please show some intellectual integrity and support your assertions.Did you read the creationist article because that was solid writing and solid logic in the race between the three articles that one is a winner x 3
We can deal with this change of topic after we deal with the three articles, which we can deal with after we deal with your confused statement about GULO, which we can deal with after we deal with my genetic evidence for evolution.I' sorry I might have missed that but ummm wow did you catch this video ... ouch ... Richard Dawkins is in too lol
Indeed. It does show the author doesn't know much about the subject, but the piece as a whole was not terrible. The last paragraph is ambiguous, but otherwise it was mostly well written.There's a correction at the bottom.
Thanks. And yes, it's 2% from the survey. (Which is of all kinds of scientists, not just geneticists, and only from American scientists, both of which will heavily skew the results toward more rejection of evolution.)from here:
Views on evolution among the public and scientists
(according to this survey its actually 2%)
Correct.lets see. your claim is that we can know that the difference between human and chimp is the result of mutations.
We don't know (although we can usually tell). All we have to know is what the differences between the two genomes should look like if they are the result of mutations, and compare that expectation with observation. Previously, you agreed that the comparison did show that accumulated mutations were responsible. Have you changed your mind?first: how do you know how the original genome was look like? for instance: if we have T in human, how do we know that the original base was A?
But what if the problem is that in his original hypothesis it was a bottom up theory in that you had a tree that branched out from bottom up. Then what happens if we discover its top down in that we get the Phylum going down in the taxonomic structure in respect to the time of discovery. Whether we are looking at the phylogenetic inspection of genetics, anatomical or fossilized we have this same problem as well as many other problems. I like to call it Horizontal Cross Spontaneous Creations.
So there is that
We don't know (although we can usually tell). All we have to know is what the differences between the two genomes should look like if they are the result of mutations
"Original creation state"??? What in the world do you mean by that?but how we can predict how it should look like? say we take a gene which is share between human and chimp. if the difference between the two species is indeed the result of mutations (and not the original creation state) what we should find and why?
It wouldn't really matter what it looks like - what would matter is how different they are to each other. If you wanted to know what it probably looked like, you'd have to involve more species and their copies of that gene, such as this hypothetical:but how we can predict how it should look like? say we take a gene which is share between human and chimp. if the difference between the two species is indeed the result of mutations (and not the original creation state) what we should find and why?
We know that different kinds of mutations happen more often than others. For example, an A base changes to a G (and vice versa) more often than it changes to a C. Therefore, if genetic differences between species are the result of mutation, we should expect to find more cases where one species has an A and the other a G than cases where one has an A and the other a C. We don't have to know whether the A was the ancestral state or the G; all we have to do is count the differences. Similarly for other combinations, and other specific mutations -- we can build up an expected pattern of differences that is the signature of mutation. When we compare the actual DNA of humans and chimpanzees, lo and behold, what we find looks exactly like the pattern we expect from mutation.but how we can predict how it should look like? say we take a gene which is share between human and chimp. if the difference between the two species is indeed the result of mutations (and not the original creation state) what we should find and why?
"Macroevolution" is used in scientific literature, although not very frequently. In evolutionary theory, the term usually means any evolution above the level of the species. There are debates about the extent to which different processes operate in microevolution and macroevolution. For example, if some lineages speciate more readily, what effect does that have on their evolutionary trajectories? I've also seen the word used more loosely in paleontology to describe long-term evolutionary trends.Such as?
Some biologists would disagree with you, e.g. Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution.Macroevolution is nothing more than a new species continuing to grow further apart from its parent species. No new or different evolutionary mechanism is required.
ok. one possible explanation (out of two that i can think of) is that those bases have a similar functional meaning, therefore its possible that the designer desinged those bases to change into more similar bases than to other kinds of bases. in such a way a new mutation has more chance to make no harm to the gene (unlike the other kinds of mutations). so if we see A in human and G in chimp it may be the result of design feature rather than mutation.We know that different kinds of mutations happen more often than others. For example, an A base changes to a G (and vice versa) more often than it changes to a C. Therefore, if genetic differences between species are the result of mutation, we should expect to find more cases where one species has an A and the other a G than cases where one has an A and the other a C. We don't have to know whether the A was the ancestral state or the G; all we have to do is count the differences. Similarly for other combinations, and other specific mutations -- we can build up an expected pattern of differences that is the signature of mutation. When we compare the actual DNA of humans and chimpanzees, lo and behold, what we find looks exactly like the pattern we expect from mutation.
ok. one possible explanation (out of two that i can think of) is that those bases have a similar functional meaning, therefore its possible that the designer desinged those bases to change into more similar bases than to other kinds of bases. in such a way a new mutation has more chance to make no harm to the gene (unlike the other kinds of mutations). so if we see A in human and G in chimp it may be the result of design feature rather than mutation.
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?