razzelflabben
Contributor
This is so frustrating, I leave long enough to feed my kids and come back to a few dozen new posts, I think you people are really robots. So in the words of johnny five, imput.Jet Black said:
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.
This is so frustrating, I leave long enough to feed my kids and come back to a few dozen new posts, I think you people are really robots. So in the words of johnny five, imput.Jet Black said:I mentioned a few of these. organisation of ERVs and ALUs only really make sense in the light of TOE.
razzelflabben said:and we do not know for sure that breeding, thus evolving can continue from the evidence, only assumptions and speculations that it can and does happen. In other words, our speciation evidence is too limiting to know for sure.
Okay, new evidence, where did all these organisms come from
and how did thousands of organisms evolve into a viable breeding source of male and female (later down the line) because there would not have been a need for male and female species to evolve.
Asexual is the way to go if you want to survive.
This is definately new teaching, but does not change the questions I have asked in this post.
razzelflabben said:It is the not all that leave the speciation of living things inconclusive evidence for the TOE.
razzelflabben said:Got it, but this doesn't address the down the road issues.
I do not think there can be conclusive evidence which is a sentiment presented by some scientists that I was asked to read. At least not in this life time.lucaspa said:My apologies. You did say "conclusive". So, let me rephrase the question: What would you consider to be conclusive evidence?
Absoltuely not, No distress, enotional or otherwise. So rethinking about a few odds and ends but nothing more strenuous than that. In fact, I have recently had a lot more challening issues to deal with in my life and I have come through the emotiona distress of them just fine. I am not afraid of the hard questions and the even harder answers, in some ways I thrive on them.But you being emotional isn't what I proposed, was it? I proposed you could not find the data for evolution conclusive, because, if you did, it would cause you emotional distress.
You are asking me a hypothetical questions for there is no proof to back it up. If that were the case however, and the evidence was conclusive I would most likely (not sure because it is hypothetical) study to see if the passage could be on the lines of a story rather than an actual account. If that did not prove to be the case, then I would reconside the apparent contridictions, and do a lot more searching.But you admit that TOC is founded on Genesis 1 and other passages of the Bible. What happens to Genesis 1 and the Bible, in your opinion, if evolution is true and TOC is false?
I think I covered this, if not, let me know, but please I am interested in your answers to the questions if the opposite were true.Even the name -- Theory of Creation -- seems significant. It looks to me that if the Theory of Creation is wrong, then Creation didn't happen. Is that how it is for you? Would Creation by God still happen? If so, how? If TOC is wrong, how would God have created?
I do not understand this question? What does your research tell you that was? What was? I am not interested in which theory is right or wrong, at least on this thread, only in knowing if there is overwhelming evidence to support the TOE and so far, I haven't seen it. I have seen strong evidence, I have seen suggestions, I have seen assertions, but no overwhelming evidence.Well, guess what? You share that passion with all those who showed TOC to be wrong and evolution to be correct! Remember, TOC was the accepted scientific theory between 1700 -1831. But scientists abandoned TOC. These scientists were all Christian and most were ministers. They must have had a reason to decide TOC was wrong. Remember, Darwin started out thinking TOC was correct. What does your research tell you that was?
Believe what you will, I have no control over what you believe and do not believe, and no fear in not controling your thoughts. I believe we have a long way to go because there are many unanswered questions out there. And much more we can learn and know and experience about our world, things that we have not even scratched the surface of knowing still await exploration. That is why I don't think we can know in this life time all the origin of life answers.And why do you have that belief system that we have a long way to go before we can know the truth about our origins? You haven't read Origin of the Species. I don't think you have read any textbook on evolutionary biology. So how do you know what we already know?
Shall I point you to all the information we do not yet have, much of which we don't even know we do not have yet. Why do we go into outerspace, the depths of the oceans, the depths of the earth if we have all the answers we seek? Why do we continue to explore if we already know the answers to the questions we ask? There is much much much more to learn and explore and research and observe before we can know the answers to the questions in this world, including the quesiton of the origins of life.Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and enter "evolution" as your search term. Look at the sheer number of papers that have been done on the subject since 1965 in a medical database. Over 160,000. Don't you think those investigations would have told us something about our origins?
razzelflabben said:Able to reproduce is not limited to species, even in the TOE.
Razzel, Gluadys accidentally confused you. All new species can reproduce within the species. What causes extinction is not failure to reproduce but failure to deal with either environmental changes or competing species. For instance, the coati is extending its range from S. America to N. America. It occupies the same ecological niche as raccoons. Where the coati is, local raccoon populations disappear. The coatis grab the food and other resources. When the coatis have gone to all parts of N. America where there are raccoons, raccoons will have gone extinct.razzelflabben said:It is the not all that leave the speciation of living things inconclusive evidence for the TOE.
Pretty much. The biological species concept is population of individuals who freely interbreed and produce fertile offspring.razzelflabben said:Able to reproduce is not limited to species, even in the TOE.
Where in the Bible -- your source for TOC -- is this mentioned.razzelflabben said:The TOC allows for some "evolution" of species. Kind would go back to when the species were not able to reproduce. In other words, if the animal cannot reproduce it is a new species but the kind is the parent of that species.
Well, then, the lab experiments are not at all what you say. One original population, then split into several populations (each with 500 individuals). Population A is captured from the wild and is kept in the original environmental conditions. Population B is placed at colder temperatures. Population C has different food than A and B. Now, after 2,500 generations, population A is the original species. It can still breed with the wild population. However, populations B and C can't breed with A or the wild. They can't breed with each other. So, where we had one kind: A, we now have three kinds: A, B, and C.I know I know poor example but I'm tired give me a break. If a horse and a donkey produce a sterile offspring, the kind is horse and the kind is donkey. Mule is a hybred of the two kinds.
It doesn't. All it does is remove an argument against it. Some people have claimed that some fhuman ossils are older than they are because they were buried and thus were found in sediments lower (older) than when they actually lived and died. Burial made the fossils look older.razzelflabben said:From history, we know that not all burial was dug. Some were in caves. And BTW, how does this prove that the fossil record is conclusive?
But why aren't you reading in the subject? Both what creationists are saying what TOC is and what biologists say evolution is? It's apparent that you are doing some reading. You tell us that TOC comes from Genesis, but the idea that speciation is part of TOC comes from articles at ICR and AiG written since 1995 or so. It's a very recent addition/change to TOC. And not a change based on the Bible!If I wasn't thinking, I would blindly follow the teaching without ever offering questions or hypothesis.
No, that burial does occur by digging a hole. And it is this hole that is going to have the fossil appear to be in sediments older than when the individual lived and died.What basic common sense would you have me apply, that burial can only occur by digging a hole.
razzelflabben said:Okay, I am functioning on about 3 hours sleep, my eyes are getting blurry and I have some other issues on the forum I need to address before I get off for the night. I would appreciate things slowing a bit so I can keep up but this thread has a mind of it's own. Hope I don't miss something important.
How do new species occur? The mixing of genes?
If I breed two creatures that have similar but not identical genes, which set of genes does the offspring take? Remember, the answer cannot be both or you just answered your own question.
Where do the hundreds come from? How do we get variations, if this is inconsistant with the TOC?
A common ancestor, that was a single celled organism that was not a single celled organism at all but rather a population of single celled organisms that came from an unknown source to populate the earth.
Single cells reproduce asexually, so there is no mating. But evolution still happens because there are still copying error in the DNA to make variation between single-celled organisms.
Right that explains all the reproductive processes we know today.
Nope sorry, I was told on this thread that all the unanswered questions were answered.
So, while we don't know all the various ways that populations can become isolated, we do know that, when they are isolated facing new environments, new species will evolve.
But not that they did. That is why it is still a theory. Because we assume that it did.
lucaspa said:Sorry, but TOE is based on the idea of common ancestors. Not a single organism. If life arose from non-life via protocells, as I think is likely, there were billions of organisms. If life arose by the RNA world, there were billions of RNA molecules. At least! Probably trillions or even higher.
As you think likely, I thought we had overwhelming evidence!!!!
That's because she is forgetting the title of Darwin's book. Origin of the SPECIES. Not "every living thing comes from a single cell", but the origin of species.gluadys said:She agrees that speciation occurs, but still insists evolution is "only a possibility for which there is no overwhelming evidence."
razzelflabben said:Why do you all treat people you believe to be C like they we uneducated idiots? I know fully well what you are saying and have understood it for many many posts now.
What you are not understanding is that I am not talking about interbreeding, but rather the ability to breed. I should be talking down to you people but instead, I bear your insults, no matter how subtle and continure on as best I can. Please do try to apply some logic and reason to your own post from now on, (statement to whomever on this thread needs to wear the shoe).
This is what the theory originally said:razzelflabben said:As I understand it, the theory used to say, that everything was descended from one organism,
We are not similar to Genesis. We are still saying there was a common ancestor population or species, but we are saying that this common ancestor species had many, many, individuals.now, we are saying that there were several organisms that each sperately started evolving. This is very similar to the Gen account of creation. God created a bunch of organisms. The difference is in how far back we go.
razzelflabben said:imput, imput
So now we are basing the whole theory on appearance? My in laws say that our eldest son is the spitting image of my father in laws brothers, son. I guess that would mean that they are closer relatives than my other children? NO, there is more to it than appearance.
razzelflabben said:The TOC allows for some "evolution" of species. Kind would go back to when the species were not able to reproduce. In other words, if the animal cannot reproduce it is a new species but the kind is the parent of that species.
I know I know poor example but I'm tired give me a break. If a horse and a donkey produce a sterile offspring, the kind is horse and the kind is donkey. Mule is a hybred of the two kinds.
razzelflabben said:The problem is when breeding stops all together and only the original populations are breedable.
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?