Hans Blaster
On August Recess
- Mar 11, 2017
- 21,853
- 16,478
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
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, lots of evidence has been presented. But, there's some kind of stigma involved in acknowledging that we did not drag ourselves out of the primordial goop, apparently.
"Tour signed Discovery’s Dissent List on Darwinian theory years ago when the National Center for Science Education asserted that only a handful of scientists doubt Darwin’s theory. Our list of dissenters started at 100, then grew to 800. At that point we stopped inviting people to sign it because their names on the list were used by Darwinists to persecute them professionally. Some lost their jobs."
It's a dangerous thing for a biologist especially to publically question evolution theory.
I see you have not replied to my previous questions. Not a good look. One wonders why you bother. Even people in the cheap seats can see how you ignore the opportunities to discuss specific points about ToE that you have been offered.No, the fact they appear in nature shows that someone designed the natural world. Chance cannot create the computer in front of you and it certainly can't create the endless complexity found in this world.
What are you trying to prove there? That is not "Darwinism". Darwin's theory predates genetics. Now you are talking about the modern synthesis. And where is there a Gish Gallop that I gave. I did not even bring up that particular article. You appear to be very very confused.You have it backward. If Darwinism is the dominant view, all one has to do it cast doubt on it being the only option possible from the evidence provided.
For example:
Ola Hössjer, Ann Gauger, and Colin Reeves, “Genetic Modeling of Human History Part
1: Comparison of Common Descent and Unique Origin Approaches,” BIO-Complexity,
Vol. 2016 (3).
Did humans evolve from apelike creatures or were they intelligently designed?
According to the standard evolutionary view, humans share a common ancestor with
chimpanzees, and our lineage diverged about 6 million years ago in Africa and then
evolved by unguided evolutionary mechanisms into its present form. This paper
evaluates the assumptions underlying the standard evolutionary model of human
origins and finds “it is full of gaps and weaknesses.” Instead, the authors maintain that
“a unique origin model where humanity arose from one single couple with created
diversity seems to explain data at least as well, if not better.”
After reviewing five main mechanisms invoked by standard evolutionary models of
population genetics to explain human genetic diversity (mutation, genetic drift, natural
selection, recombination, and colonization and migration), the paper observes that:
Neo-Darwinism accounts for the above-mentioned mechanisms I–V, and among
them germline mutations are essentially the only way by which novel DNA can
arise. The theory does not allow for large amounts of new and suddenly
appearing diversity. The reason is that neo-Darwinism is framed within
methodological naturalism. This prevailing approach to science only allows for
natural hypotheses. But if an intelligent designer is invoked as a possible
explanation, and if humanity originates from one single couple, it is possible that
their chromosomes were created with considerable diversity from the beginning.
Thus, the authors report discovery of “a sixth mechanism of genetic change,” one which
is almost universally ignored by evolutionary models: “Created founder diversity is
biologically plausible for DNA of non-sex chromosomes.”
With these mechanisms in mind, the article compares standard evolutionary “common
ancestry” models of human origins with “unique origin” models, where an initial pair of
humans was created with significant founder diversity. There are two main common
ancestry models of human origins: the Out-of-Africa model, where humans evolved in
Africa and then migrated out one single time, and the Multiregional Evolution model,
where humans evolved in Africa but migrated out multiple times, with different human
populations around the world evolving in parallel. There are also two “unique origin”
models: An African Ancestry model, where the initial created pair was located in Africa,
and a Middle East ancestry model, where an initial couple was created in the Middle
East and then humans migrated around the world.
The authors note that the “main argument against a unique origin is that the nucleotide
diversity of human DNA data seems too high in order make a single founding couple
possible.” But they argue it is possible that humans are descended from an initial couple
if “they were created with genetic diversity in their autosomal and X-chromosome
DNA.” What about the location of the initial couple? Non-African populations of humans
seem more genetically similar compared to African humans, and they note that “the
Middle East ancestry model faces some challenges, in particular to explain why African
DNA looks older than non-African DNA.” However, a Middle East origin model could
explain the data if “the age of humanity is much more recent” than common ancestry
models predict, and if African populations experienced higher rates of genetic change
and lived in isolated communities where unique diversity was easily fixed into small
populations. They cite previous literature to support these ideas, making the Middle
East unique origin model a realistic possibility.
The authors conclude that “Any common descent model faces a challenge to explain the
genetic differences rather than the similarities with other species, the consequences of
inbreeding depression and increased genetic entropy, human DNA mixture with archaic
populations, and that our DNA resembles a mosaic of about four founder genomes.”
Thus, they find that “The provisional conclusion is that a unique origin model seems
more plausible.” But which unique origin model best explains the data? They urge
future research is needed to test the two unique origins models, which is what the
authors plan to do in subsequent papers. It may be that multiple models can explain the
data, in which case they conclude that “the common descent model of our origin from
ape-like ancestors can no longer be claimed as conclusive proof that there could not
have been a single first pair.”
Why not read what he has to say and then decide if he has "abused" physics. If you are sufficiently informed to judge what is accurate in the world of physics use this link which is more appropriate for people who are knowledgeable in this field, it goes into much more technical detail. Feel free to be specific in any criticism you may have after reviewing his work. https://www.crediblecatholic.com/pdf/7E-P2/7E-BB1.pdfOh great, another philosopher abusing physics (in this case relativity) to create new "philosophy.
Actually it is your claim. It is up to you to pick what you think is his best argument. I looked though it and there was no credible evidence there.Why not read what he has to say and then decide if he has "abused" physics. If you are sufficiently informed to judge what is accurate in the world of physics use this link which is more appropriate for people who are knowledgeable in this field, it goes into much more technical detail. Feel free to be specific in any criticism you may have after reviewing his work. https://www.crediblecatholic.com/pdf/7E-P2/7E-BB1.pdf
I would be interested to hear your specific criticism of any of the points he makes. Note all of the footnotes, that is called evidence.Actually it is your claim. It is up to you to pick what you think is his best argument. I looked though it and there was no credible evidence there.
I would be interested to hear your specific criticism of any of the points he makes. Note all of the footnotes, that is called evidence.
Hey darwin did see that happeningI did say. I do not believe that one kind of animal makes the genetic leap to another kind. I can observe adaptation, I can't observe a squirrel becoming a toad. It does not happen in the natural world, so why should I believe what I can't see?
Darwin saw two different types of finches and somehow got the idea that this leads to finches becoming humans if enough time lapses and there are enough intermediates in between. Well, there are still different types of finches and different types of canines and felines, and so on, but there's no half canines, half felines.Hey darwin did see that happening
Really? That must have been in some edition of his that I missed.Darwin saw two different types of finches and somehow got the idea that this leads to finches becoming humans if enough time lapses and there are enough intermediates in between. Well, there are still different types of finches and different types of canines and felines, and so on, but there's no half canines, half felines.
But doesn't the idea count for something. I mean if darwin got the idea shouldn't it be enough for rest of the world to trust his thoughts? He didn't have to prove it. I can't believe why people still don't trust him.Darwin saw two different types of finches and somehow got the idea that this leads to finches becoming humans if enough time lapses and there are enough intermediates in between. Well, there are still different types of finches and different types of canines and felines, and so on, but there's no half canines, half felines.
but there's no half canines, half felines.
It has been "proven". Darwin himself found very strong evidence for it.But doesn't the idea count for something. I mean if darwin got the idea shouldn't it be enough for rest of the world to trust his thoughts? He didn't have to prove it. I can't believe why people still don't trust him.
I would be interested to hear your specific criticism of any of the points he makes. Note all of the footnotes, that is called evidence.
Lots of false ideas in the world.But doesn't the idea count for something. I mean if darwin got the idea shouldn't it be enough for rest of the world to trust his thoughts? He didn't have to prove it. I can't believe why people still don't trust him.
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?