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.
Just so there is no misunderstanding by new-arrivals, humans and chimps are only about 70% similar.
Why? It's not meant to. Do you think Plate Tectonic Theory should explain neucleosynthesis, sedimentation and orogeny?It would be helpful if the theory of evolution could explain anything, other than variations within species.
Dan
An appeal to authority and a 25 year-old letter to the editor?Have you ever read this by Dr. David N. Mention (PhD Biology, Brown University)?
"Although Darwin spoke longingly of the chance origin of life from simple chemicals in some ‘warm little pond,’ there has never been evidence that anything remotely like this has ever happened. In fact, the evidence for chemical evolution is so embarrassing, some evolutionists insist that the whole idea of the origin of life is not even a part of the theory of evolution but rather is a creationist plot to discredit evolution!" [David Menton, "The Origin of Life." Creation Ministries International, 1993,
Adapted from: St. Louis MetroVoice, August 1993, Vol. 3, No. 8]
Sound familiar?
Dan
I'm getting at context. It explains what the IDers wrote.
If ToE has origins as Darwin speculated, then it has spontaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis. Aren't these more in line with pseudoscience than a valid scientific theory. It's part of the history of evolutionary thought. ToE didn't just spring up one day. You can't just ignore all the crackpot stuff that went on and say it's a better theory today.
Creation science states what is written in the Bible and that while the Bible isn't a science book, science does back up the Bible. In this case, God created humans as a separate species from other land animals.
During Darwin's time, mutationism was believed to cause new forms and new species. Isn't mutation what drives ToE today?
Mutation part of evolutionary biology
Mutation - Wikipedia
Mutationism
Mutationism - Wikipedia
Now we're getting somewhere. What has biology moved on to? How does what Gerd Mueller said not fit with what the IDers wrote?
The IDers continue to state that it shed light of the deficiencies in Darwinian theory. They think traditional Darwinian theorists and even the ESSers are still far away. There were two traditional Darwinian theorists at the meeting who poo pooed Mueller.
I think what the IDers wrote was to show the discrepancy as to what evolution apologists present to the media and what they say behind closed doors. IDers state that Mueller was poo-pooed as ESS isn't necessary. Certainly, what he said wasn't reported by major news organizations even though the Royal Society meeting is big stuff in evolutionary circles. How did Mueller's presentation relate to your views on biology today? Is ESS not necessary or valid addition?
Perhaps here:
"The theory performs well with regard to the issues it concentrates on, providing testable and abundantly confirmed predictions on the dynamics of genetic variation in evolving populations, on the gradual variation and adaptation of phenotypic traits, and on certain genetic features of speciation. If the explanation would stop here, no controversy would exist. But it has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behaviour—whose variation it describes—actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences." [Gerd B. Mueller, "Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary." Royal Society of Biological Sciences, 2017, p.3]
Dan
Evolution works by mutations adding diversity then selection acting on that diversity.I was expecting something more scientific than a few worn-out talking points. My question was:
"How does the process of evolution occur?"
How about explaining evolution from an information standpoint. That is, what is the process by which genetic information is changed to transform one life form, say, a running land-creature known as the Pakicetus, into an entirely different lifeform, such as a deep-diving, sea-going whale. If your answer is simply, "mutations", then show us how that is possible.
Dan
Tomkins is infamous for his deliberately incorrect approaches to calculating sequence comparisons. Nobody takes him seriously.
Why? It's not meant to. Do you think Plate Tectonic Theory should explain neucleosynthesis, sedimentation and orogeny?
An appeal to authority and a 25 year-old letter to the editor?
Let me rephrase: It would be helpful if Darwinism could prove macroevolution.
Dan
Tomkins and Menton , oh man !!!!!!!LOL!!! You’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel . No one pays attention to either of those pseudoscientists
Clemson University-trained geneticist Jeffrey Tomkins, and his co-conspirator against the religious orthodoxy of evolutionism, Harvard-trained geneticist Nathaniel Jeanson, are throwing the establishment for a loop, no doubt.
What do you mean by "information"? You mean DNA?
Genetic, cellular, neuronal, etc.. Information, not morphology.
Dan
Evolution works by mutations adding diversity then selection acting on that diversity.
I assume you accept that mutations change the genome of a life form. Creationists have never, in my experience, demonstrated that there is any kind of barrier to mutations building up over the generations to the point that separated populations would need to be defined as separate species.
The information increases when a mutation copies a section then point mutations act on the newer copy. Completely novel traits can enter the population this way.
If that doesn't fit your definition of information could you please define how you are using the term and if there is an objective way to measure it?
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?