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.
Well if it was just a freak accident, why don't they fly them today?The bad publicity following the Hindenburg disaster.
So what made them quit flying them with hydrogen, if it was just a freak accident?
"IF".Well if it was just a freak accident, why don't they fly them today?
Ever been to Scotland?Guns kill people by "freak accident," but you don't see guns banned.
So it was popular to fly those things with hydrogen at one time, until someone got a reality check?And because the Hindenburg disaster made zeppelin travel very unpopular.
But not before ... right?Mr Laurier said:People were terrified of zeppelins after that.
It was never considered to be the best option--according to "scientists" but the Germans couldn't get Helium, because it all comes from the US and we wouldn't sell them any. The decision to not sell them any was not made by "scientists."So it was popular to fly those things with hydrogen at one time, until someone got a reality check? But not before ... right?
The marketing department of Deutsche Zeppelin Reederei, the company which operated the Zeppelins. (No, not "scientists.")Who convinced the general population that the Hindenburg was safe?
Wrong. And the exact opposite of right.So it was popular to fly those things with hydrogen at one time, until someone got a reality check?But not before ... right?
Nobody.Who convinced the general population that the Hindenburg was safe?
Clearest explanation ever....at least on an internet forum.In a nutshell, microevolution is anything that can be done to a dog through selective breeding, without cloning.
From a creationist's perspective, the animal was created in its ideal form. Changes necessarily happen over time, in the same way that your brand new car will not stay brand new.
Speaking from a biological perspective, there's a huge difference between tweaking or removing a gene, versus changing the karyotype and jumping from one species to another. There are definite species barriers. Evolutionism assumes that if small changes are possible, then large changes can happen as an accumulation of small changes. This ignores the reality of the situation. The genome behaves like a glass of water: you can slosh it around, and even lose some of it, but it remains contained, or else it ceases to exist.
The second biggest false assumption of evolutionism is that if random change is possible, then good random change is also possible, and with natural selection things can get better. There would be a significant difference between talking about things getting better by chance, which is already not the way things generally work, to talking about things becoming more meaningful by chance, which would be utterly impossible. It's the difference between liking the patina of your car after it has thoroughly rusted, versus the onboard computer having a glitch and spontaneously programming a new fuel efficiency monitor into itself. Getting "better" is subjective and potentially incremental, while getting "more meaningful" requires intent and has to be done in large irreducible steps. The genetic code has meaning. It's not like a new coat of paint, but much more like written text.
So, what can happen in microevolution?
Wild rabbit
- Things can always get worse.
- Lateral movement is possible (evolution of blue eyes from brown, or the evolution of blonde hair from brown), but even in this case the movement is not genuinely lateral. While blonde hair may be functionally similar in value to brown hair, genetic sense is being lost. Hence, the evolution is negative.
- Genes can be lost.
- Bad genes can be formed, usually from formerly good ones.
- Genes that have gone bad in small ways, such as through a base pair substitution, can revert spontaneously, but usually only in populations that reproduce in high numbers. New genetic information is not created in the process. It would be more like a transcriber accidentally correcting a typo through another typo, rather than a transcriber accidentally writing a new book.
- Genetic expression can change the degree of attributes without changing the amount of sense in the genetic code. For example, an animal may become more muscular through the increased expression of anabolic hormones, but while this makes for a stronger animal, it does not involve new information. It's a change of degree, not type. One might also argue that there are costs to the increased strength, but it can go both ways.
- Natural selection promotes stasis, not evolution. The animal that changes, dies:
Wild Rabbit
Wild Rabbit
Domestic dog
Domestic dog
Domestic dog
Hence, any real change requires the removal of natural selection. Even then, the domestic dog cannot be bread into a bird or some other species. Under the most fluid of conditions, the change appears to have very definite limits.
This is microevolution.
Macroevolution is the assumption that microevolution, taken repeatedly, results in much larger changes. Macroevolution assumes that if the transcriber can accidentally misspell a word, then he can "accidentally," without knowledge or aforethought, write an epic novel. Macroevolution assumes that if a dimple in the fender can accidentally pop back out, to the fender's former shape, then the fender can accidentally crinkle into the shape of a functional wing. It assumes that if we keep crashing our cars into things, then we'll eventually, just by pure luck, wind up with something better than the new car, and all we have to do is refuse to buy the inferior model. Macroevolution pretends that there are no genetic limits to a species, that a thing can fluidly change from one type of animal to another. Macroevolution equates "better," with more meaningful. Macroevolution assumes that a thing can have meaning without an intelligent mind to give it meaning.
The only meaning in a genetic code, is in the mind of some human observer who decided there must be one.Clearest explanation ever....at least on an internet forum.nonaeroterraqueous said:Getting "better" is subjective and potentially incremental, while getting "more meaningful" requires intent and has to be done in large irreducible steps. The genetic code has meaning. It's not like a new coat of paint, but much more like written text.
The only thing that is clear is that neither of you understands evolution. Even if the theory of evolution turns out to be wrong, that explanation does not describe it.Clearest explanation ever....at least on an internet forum.
This argument is self-defeating.nonaeroterraqueous said:Macroevolution is the assumption that microevolution, taken repeatedly, results in much larger changes. Macroevolution assumes that if the transcriber can accidentally misspell a word, then he can "accidentally," without knowledge or aforethought, write an epic novel. Macroevolution assumes that if a dimple in the fender can accidentally pop back out, to the fender's former shape, then the fender can accidentally crinkle into the shape of a functional wing. It assumes that if we keep crashing our cars into things, then we'll eventually, just by pure luck, wind up with something better than the new car, and all we have to do is refuse to buy the inferior model. Macroevolution pretends that there are no genetic limits to a species, that a thing can fluidly change from one type of animal to another. Macroevolution equates "better," with more meaningful. Macroevolution assumes that a thing can have meaning without an intelligent mind to give it meaning.
Which is nothing more than an insult which is evidently, completely devoid of substance.Or you don't understand what you think you understand.
Only in your mind. Science is not a logical test of (human) assumed truths. It follows a completely different method and serves a completely different, but still human assigned purpose.Seriously? Rotfl. No study of the past is hard science. There are always assumptions.
Would you have gotten on it? or applauded someone close to you to do so? or maybe encouraged a family member to go?The marketing department of Deutsche Zeppelin Reederei, the company which operated the Zeppelins. (No, not "scientists.")
I know what evolutionary biologists are claiming happens and you do not. Notice that the question of whether their claims are correct is a separate question. Your arguments make no sense because they do not address the real theory of evolution.Or you don't understand what you think you understand.
"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”Only in your mind. Science is not a logical test of (human) assumed truths. It follows a completely different method and serves a completely different, but still human assigned purpose.
You ought to read the whole essay, not just the mined quote from Creation.com"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”
—Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005),
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?