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.
LOL!Humans adapt to different environments by intelligence, not by genetic adaptation.
Ah, so a new allele via a single mutation. Thanks. You seem to undercut your claims the more you blabber.Only occasionally do we see adaptation by mutation such as sickle cell variants. But that only requires a single mutation.
If there was a thumbs down, I'd click it.Have you observed the Intelligent Design creation of a fully formed man from dust?
Or run the probabilities on it?
No? No experiments? Nothing?
Pfft... typical...
Indeed - he could have been the new director of the Bio-Logic Institute... oh, right.....Especially when you consider the number of biologists working today. Just in the U.S. there are over 100k and apparently none of them care about Kleinman's work.
Heck, even other creationists/ID proponents don't seem to care. If his work really was as demolishing to macroevolution as he thinks it is, you'd think creationist/ID organizations would be all over it.
It is all well and good for creationists to attack evolution, but believe it or not, this is not a dichotomous issue. Your mere beliefs do not become true if evolution is wrong. I do wonder why people like you spend so much time attacking evolution rather than supporting your alternative. I suspect it has something to do with there being far far less evidence (and math) for what you wish to be true than what the evidence indicates.
tas, tell us how a stem cell goes on to produce more cells that tell other cells to turn on and off the production of keratin to make the correct feather type grow in the correct location on birds?You do not understand the relationship between genotype and phenotype, so your contrived math is irrelevant.
You don't know?
Shades of ReMine!
And what are those times and how do you know?
Keratin? We have keratin in nails, skin, hair, etc. And the amino acid sequences of keratins in different species are not identical. You suck at picking examples to 'prove your point.'
Why would that have to happen in a "single lineage"? You suck at this.
You seem to be implying that those systems differ by some major chasm. I once had a creationist insist that claws and nails were so totally different that evolution cannot even explain how one evolved from the other. You seem to be of that mindset.
How many mutations do you suppose would have been required to get an avian respiratory system from a reptilian one? And how did you come to that conclusion?
Not really.
Um...
Evidence? And do no mention your usual as that is irrelevant. Do you think an altered limb, for example, requires specific mutations to alter all of the structures in that limb? Mutations for muscles, mutations for bones, etc.? Heck, do you know how to produce an allele? How many mutations are needed to get a new allele, by your understanding?
And the same to you - as you reject that accepted explanation, you need to provide your explanation then substantiate your explanation with repeatable experimentation if you want that explanation to be scientific.
It is all well and good for creationists to attack evolution, but believe it or not, this is not a dichotomous issue. Your mere beliefs do not become true if evolution is wrong. I do wonder why people like you spend so much time attacking evolution rather than supporting your alternative. I suspect it has something to do with there being far far less evidence (and math) for what you wish to be true than what the evidence indicates.
They can't make scientific arguments or present experimental evidence for their pseudoscientific beliefs about macroevolution so they say "prove God". The sad part about this is that can't even explain microevolution correctly and that's the explanation of how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail.If there was a thumbs down, I'd click it.
They can't make scientific arguments or present experimental evidence for their pseudoscientific beliefs about macroevolution so they say "prove God". The sad part about this is that can't even explain microevolution correctly and that's the explanation of how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail.
Still no experimental evidence of macroevolution? I guess you have to fill your posts with something. I'm still in a little shock that Frank admits my math correctly explains the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Doesn't he have to be sent to a relearning center or something?A common theme among creationists/ID proponents is the faulty view that creation is the null hypothesis of evolution. Hence why there is so little effort to provide positive evidence for design in lieu of negative evidence against evolution.
Still no experimental evidence of macroevolution? I guess you have to fill your posts with something. I'm still in a little shock that Frank admits my math correctly explains the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Doesn't he have to be sent to a relearning center or something?
So you didn't listen to your mother when she told you to put on your coat when you went outside so you wouldn't catch your death of cold.This from the person who claimed that human adaptations to different climates is due to intelligence and not genetics.
Do you have one that explains the Kishony and Lenski experiments?(Not to mention someone who still apparently hasn't bothered to read any modern evolutionary biology textbooks and the fact the subject of drug resistance evolution is covered in said books.)
They call that experimental evidence, you should try it.This from the guy who apparently gets frequent flier miles every time he mentions Kishony and Lenski.
They call that experimental evidence, you should try it.
The Kishony and Lenski experiments are the test. Perhaps you have an experiment that does fit this model?You should try taking your own advice.
Let us know when you've actually tested your model. I won't hold my breath.
So you didn't listen to your mother when she told you to put on your coat when you went outside so you wouldn't catch your death of cold.
The Kishony and Lenski experiments are the test.
If you don't, you are basing your theory on presumption, not scientific principles. You are presuming taxonomic groups are related and therefore macroevolution exists. That is physically and mathematically illogical.
Aren't you aware that if it doesn't fit into Alan's K & L model it is pseudoscience?Are you actually trying to deny the existence of cold-weather adaptations?
I mean, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but based on some of things you've claimed, it's really stretching it.
Aren't you aware that if it doesn't fit into Alan's K & L model it is pseudoscience?
Oh no, it can happen genetically at the rate of about 1 adaptation mutation/billion replications. Do you know that Lenski did thermal stress experiments with his bacteria?Are you actually trying to deny the existence of cold-weather adaptations?
I mean, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but based on some of things you've claimed, it's really stretching 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?