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.
I have no idea. I just thought you might appreciate something that makes room for common space.Is that y-Adam and mtDNA Eve?
Those who believe in the Flash, believe he made it from Boston to L.A. in a second, as he said he did.
Those who don't believe in the Flash are doomed to have to believe he walked it; and so they have to start making up things to fit their theory:
Add five months to the pot, add wear and tear on his sartorial equipment, interpret debris along his trail as belonging to him, and the list can go on and on.
You make a very important point. It has to be kept in mind that while evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is not, strictly speaking, a fact. Scientific theories are not, in themselves, facts. They are explanations of facts. Unfortunately, that distinction is sometimes lost in the popular media and in lower-level teaching. the only thing about the theory of evolution which is a fact, is that it is a fact that it is so far the only well-evidenced and explanatory theory for the fact of evolution.No, it isn't. In fact you are contradicting yourself by saying it is.
huh?WHOOSH!
Right over your head.
I think one could argue that the core principle(s) of evolution might be a fact(s):You make a very important point. It has to be kept in mind that while evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is not, strictly speaking, a fact. Scientific theories are not, in themselves, facts. They are explanations of facts. Unfortunately, that distinction is sometimes lost in the popular media and in lower-level teaching. the only thing about the theory of evolution which is a fact, is that it is a fact that it is so far the only well-evidenced and explanatory theory for the fact of evolution.
That seems reasonable. The process can be modeled mathematically and has practical applications in industry. It has been observed in living creatures up to and including speciation, which growing numbers of creationists are beginning to admit. The main question remaining for them is, can the "tree (or bush) of life" be traced back to a single trunk or is it a forest of "kind" trees?I think one could argue that the core principle(s) of evolution might be a fact(s):
Ie: any place where there is an error prone self replicator with access to free energy and constraints imposed by its environment, will evolve(?)
I'd agree that might be a question for them .. meanwhile science moves on (with crystal clarity ..)The main question remaining for them is, can the "tree (or bush) of life" be traced back to a single trunk or is it a forest of "kind" trees?
So we finally found a transitional!T
hat's okay. But neither am I an evolutionist. I'm fine with evading classification.You're definitely not a creationist.
Aron Ra made a series of amazing videos about this.That seems reasonable. The process can be modeled mathematically and has practical applications in industry. It has been observed in living creatures up to and including speciation, which growing numbers of creationists are beginning to admit. The main question remaining for them is, can the "tree (or bush) of life" be traced back to a single trunk or is it a forest of "kind" trees?
FredVB said:I think that there are gene pools, distinct from one another. Maybe genetic defects happen that contribute to some further variation but not enough that would permit such drift that would exclude all the original gene pool without all the genetic defects that would be involved killing off the gene pool for that possibility, which then could not happen. So it would allow speciation, from adequate variation possible already in the gene pool, and may be a little further variation, but not much further than that.
Estrid said:
It is funny, to me, that it is frequently that among those responding to posts from creationist believers, there are the responses to show they don't understand the communication, as if they don't. It would be rather ironic. Gene pools are really very separate. Variations from genetic drift, which can result from mutations, can happen. But the overwhelming number of mutations is not consisting of anything beneficial to those of a gene pool. To have enough mutations to produce enough useful variations for coming to any new forms distinct from what was possible in the original gene pool, there would be a huge number of harmful mutations that could overwhelm the gene pool instead, which would be far too likely. This is an objection to effective evolution depending on mutations.
Watching people who can't manage to grasp what evolution is trying to find a way to undermine it is... pathetic.
The limitations of natural variation were already observed and known about in Darwin's time- by those who had been conducting the empirical scientific experiments for centuries; farmers.
It has been calculated that multiplying the number of nanoseconds since the beginning of the universe by the number of individual organisms that ever existed, & then by the number of elementary particles that make up the universe- would still not give you a large enough number of attempts, to randomly create a new modest sized functional protein, by chance arrangement of it's amino acids.
Apples and oranges though. Farmers aren't necessarily going to be breeding crops or livestock and subjecting to the same selective pressures as might otherwise occur in nature.
Except that proteins don't form by pure randomization, so any arguments on this basis are completely irrelevant.
Attempting to use probability arguments to argue against biological evolution and/or abiogenesis is a fool's errand.
Of course, artificial selection has the advantage of working towards a goal v random chaos that can readily select inferior genetic lines
The sequences are coded for in DNA, the 4 characters of your quaternary code must be grouped into the proper syntax to instruct the sequencing of the 20 main amino acids
so creating them via randomly mutating DNA (as the theory goes) only adds an additional layer of difficulty for chance to succeed
It used to be, when the cell was an indistinct blob of protoplasm- we had nothing to base it on
As we learned more about the structure and information systems in the cell, the staggering improbability of life occurring by chance became an explicit rationale for the 'infinite improbability generator ' aka multiverse, that given enough rolls of the dice, a universe like ours has to be created eventually- as Hawking himself put 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?