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.
Nice topic. Can you be more specific? Not all sedimentary layers have a high degree of lamination; many layers have extensive bioturbation, so I'm not really sure what you are asking. Indeed, as I type this, I'm wondering what you are thinking of as a layer - a sequence tens of thousands of feet thick, or a thousand feet of turbidites, or a hundred feet or so of a cyclothem?Let's begin with your explanation of the high degree of lamination of the sedimentary layers. Explain why there is little or no bioturbation.
Dan
Found this early yesterday. Please actually watch it before making a comment on it.
Do you know of any proof there is such a thing as a nonfunctional gene -- a pseudogene?
Irrelevant. You implied that the "favoured races" in the title of On the Origin of Species had something to do with human races and racism. That implication was wrong. Like every other creationist I've seen make that connection, you haven't withdrawn your statement.How do you interpret this, Stephen?
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then, be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." [Charles Darwin, Affinities and Genealogies, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." 1888, Chap VI, p.156]
Dan
Great -- show your calculations (noting that the differences don't have to be fixed -- we're comparing representative genomes, not fixed differences). Try a mutation rate of 1.4 x 10^-8/bp/generation, a generation time of 25 years, a species divergence time of 7 million years and an ancestral population size of 50,000. Let me know what you come up with.The jury is still out on your methodology, Stephen. There simply does not seem to have been enough time (enough generations) for the many millions of differences to have become fixed.
Those poor downtrodden Red Cabbages...Irrelevant. You implied that the "favoured races" in the title of On the Origin of Species had something to do with human races and racism. That implication was wrong. Like every other creationist I've seen make that connection, you haven't withdrawn your statement.
Doesn't the coccyx support and stabilize the man while he is in a sitting position? Isn't it also used for defecation?
Irrelevant.In another thread, I made a comment around the age for circumcision in the bible of 8 days being the optimal time, and received all manner of comments from evolutionists about foreskin having a use. If evolutionists can identify a purpose for a flap of skin that certain groups have lived without for millennia, I find it highly unlikely they will identify another body part or organ (i.e. a vestigial structure) that has less demonstrable use than this.
Amazing insights - so cool how you believe that people having a body part surgically removed may have problems.If you really believe the coccyx or other part is vestigial, where are the groups of people who have had this useless part removed, and the studies on these people? I am certain thorough studies will identify problems in all groups where so-called vestigial parts were removed.
Ok, great.Life is about the origin of life.
in most cases (or at least in many cases) anti bacterial resistance is the result of a point mutaion in a specific antibiotic target site (say an important protein). but its not evolution of a new system, only a degeneration of existing part, so we can explain it by design too.
For those who did not read the OP, here is what Gerd Mueller wrote.
You link didn't take me to the article in question but never mind.
I read the article thanks. Mueller's message is summed up in the conclusion...
This is an exciting period in evolutionary biology. The principal Darwinian research tradition is upheld, but the specifics of evolutionary theory structure are undergoing ferment, including the revision of some of its traditional elements and the incorporation of new elements. Instead of privileging selected mechanisms such as random variation, genetic control and natural selection, the multitude of factors that dynamically interact in the evolutionary process will be better expounded by a pluralistic theory framework. Current evolutionary research already reflects this pluralism, and as many of its underlying concepts have drifted from the standard theoretical paradigm, an adjusted evolutionary framework that adequately synthesizes the multitude of new theoretical elements has become a necessity. The EES represents one possibility for such integration.
If you'd like to know why I said Borg's article is propagandist rubbish....
Gerd Müller, a highly regarded Austrian evolutionary theorist, recently gave a presentation, published in Interface Focus, in which he admitted Charlies Darwin’s theory largely avoids explaining how life originated and how complexity developed.
He "admitted" no such thing, Darwin's theory didn't deal with abiogenesis, why would he need to make such an admission?
I'd be interested to see where you think he "admits" that "Charles Darwin's theory" avoids explaining how complexity developed, I couldn't see where he said that.
..................................
Müller did not espouse any creationist or design beliefs, but his presentation demonstrated that even the most staunch advocates of evolution are forced to admit the theory has many holes. The presentation was devastating “for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out,” Discovery Institute experts wrote on their organization’s blog.
Where is the implication that there are "many holes"? Or that anyone is forced to admit that there are "many holes"....
Nowhere.
Where does he mention origins?
Nowhere.
Who thought that evolutionary theory had "it all figured out"?
No one.
......................................
Müller’s admission offers a particularly damning critique since answers to questions about how things originated and how complexity developed form the basis for all origin theories. He also referred to the concept of macroevolution, the idea that one species can evolve into a totally different species, as “vague” and advised proponents of an expanded framework of evolution to avoid the term altogether.
This is a complete misrepresentation of Mueller's article to try to imply that there is some sort of doubt or lack of evidence for "one species evolving into a totally different species".
In the article Mueller is describing the issues that can occur due to the term "macroevolution" being ill-defined.
...................................
Many Christians reject the theory of macroevolution because the Bible teaches that God created everything according to its kind. Somewhat less controversial is the theory of microevolution, which refers to changes or adaptations within a species. For example, dog breeders can breed a dog that sheds less, but it’s still a dog. But they can’t breed a dog that can fly. Many evolutionists believe microevolutionary changes lead to macroevolution, but Müller admitted even evolutionary experts argue among themselves about whether microevolutionary adaptations actually produce macroevolution.
LOL, utter rubbish, this is not discussed, hinted at, or implied by Mueller. The sad thing is that creationists eat this crap up because it's what they want to hear.
Mueller admitted no such thing, it's pure propaganda.
...................................
Even within evolutionary circles, Müller noted, a large number of scientists recognize that the standard theory of evolution needs to be revised or replaced altogether: “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike.”
Well, that's the point of his essay, he goes on to say...
In the present essay, I will concentrate on the arguments and debates triggered by one particular alternative to the standard theory that has become known under the term extended evolutionary synthesis (EES). This proposal for an integration of revised and additional components of evolutionary theory into a coherent explanatory framework, as recently elaborated by Laland et al.
How is incorporating new areas of research into the theory a bad thing?
The whole tone of Borg's article is that a "leading evolutionist" is somehow admitting that the theory of evolution is flawed, whereas the whole point of Mueller's article is that...
"Since the last major theoretical integration in evolutionary biology—the modern synthesis (MS) of the 1940s—the biosciences have made significant advances. The rise of molecular biology and evolutionary developmental biology, the recognition of ecological development, niche construction and multiple inheritance systems, the ‘-omics’ revolution and the science of systems biology, among other developments, have provided a wealth of new knowledge about the factors responsible for evolutionary change. Some of these results are in agreement with the standard theory and others reveal different properties of the evolutionary process. A renewed and extended theoretical synthesis, advocated by several authors in this issue, aims to unite pertinent concepts that emerge from the novel fields with elements of the standard theory."
To be honest I'm not sure why you're bringing abiogenesis into the discussion.
This is hilarious.I will agree that the field of evolution is based on a lie (or, more to the point, magic and historical philosophy), as are many of its "Icons", such as Haeckel's embryos, peppered moths, vestigial organs, whale evolution, and junk DNA, to name a few. But after all those embarrassments, the myth that man and ape are 95% genetically similar is still being touted as fact, years after it was demonstrated that there are millions of differences between the two. Even evolutionary geology is based on flaky theories that are easily rebutted.
Dan
Great -- show your calculations (noting that the differences don't have to be fixed -- we're comparing representative genomes, not fixed differences). Try a mutation rate of 1.4 x 10^-8/bp/generation, a generation time of 25 years, a species divergence time of 7 million years and an ancestral population size of 50,000. Let me know what you come up with.
Nice topic. Can you be more specific? Not all sedimentary layers have a high degree of lamination; many layers have extensive bioturbation, so I'm not really sure what you are asking. Indeed, as I type this, I'm wondering what you are thinking of as a layer - a sequence tens of thousands of feet thick, or a thousand feet of turbidites, or a hundred feet or so of a cyclothem?
The generic answer to your question is that there is much lamination, because sedimentation was cyclic, or certainly intermittent. And bioturbation is commonplace in many sediments, so that question doesn't make sense as written.
From your link - "Patients with this deformity lack motor function at the affected vertebral level and sensory functions below the affected level." Doesn't sound vestigial at all to me. The key words that gave it away were "deformity", lacking "motor function", and "sensory functions". Just in case you don't understand the term vestigial, I quote it below:"Patients with with partial sacral or coccygeal agenesis may have no symptoms."
- here
The word "OR" in this context means it can be one or more of these, not necessarily all.From your link - "Patients with this deformity lack motor function at the affected vertebral level and sensory functions below the affected level." Doesn't sound vestigial at all to me. The key words that gave it away were "deformity", lacking "motor function", and "sensory functions". Just in case you don't understand the term vestigial, I quote it below:
"Vestigial (of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution."
Oops. Darwin's disciples get it wrong again. It hardly seems fair to call them scientists.
first: i already explain it without evolution by claiming that many creatures were very similar at their creation event.
secondly: even if it was true that we can explain it only by evolution its just a small part in biology.
so we cant claim that evolution is important to understand biology. also: only design can explain the complexity of life since evolution cant explain it.
so by this critieria above design is important to understand biology too.
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?