pgp_protector
Noted strange person
- Dec 17, 2003
- 51,888
- 17,790
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
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.
I disagree. I'm very obviously an ascendant of those that came before.
Not as long as you see me posting here.
Perhaps a minor clarification is needed.
Some evidence suggests that the very lowest level has some "messyness" to it - that there was originally a community of organisms, some of which ate others, and some of which gained genetic material by horizontal transfer. As such, there may not be a single bacterium at the very root of the tree of life, but that if this original community, or single celled organisms descended from this community, are considered a "universal common ancestor", then UCD is true.
This small amount of fuzzyness at the most basic level is very different from denying, say, that all plants, animals and fungi have a single common ancestor, which is supported by so much evidence that it is undeniable.
So I voted yes, with the minor caveat about the very lowest level. It might we worth it to point that out in your posts, because it is unavoidable that some creationist will deny UCD of animals, and then falliaciously cite the fuzzyness at the root level, as if that were relevant.
Papias
Except that the fossil record does not support UCD anywhere remotely near to the extent that it should, taking into consideration the multi-billion in between forms that are required of virtually all species in earth's history. Not to mention that these forms would have to be both inextricably unique and vastless numerous, yet they are nowhere to be found.
Who knows what these "mythical" evolutionary mechanisms that seemingly accomplished UCD could possibly entail, but truthfully it doesn't matter. That somehow, these mythical mechanisms were able to produce variations in genetic information that led to "new" information,
and that this new information was somehow finetuned and assembled in a manner that is nothing short of miraculous to produce incredibly complex organs such as the human brain, eyeball, spleen, pancreas, kidney, etc.
That God was absolutely forced to use strict, naturalistic means to produce all life, and that he wasn't allowed to do anything else. That God is not allowed to step out of the bounds of what is logical to us and intellectually palatable. What a joke
Happy wrote:
Um, first, you need to undestand the scientific field of taphonomy - which shows (with real experimental data) what most of us already know, which is that nearly all animal bodies decompose to nothing within a matter of years, bones and all. Since everything decays, a fossil record that shows nothing would be reasonable.
Luckily, we have literally thousands of transitional fossils. You wrote "nowhere to be found". What a massive understatement. Here are just some of them: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 and
New information is shown to occur all the time, especially by the process of gene duplication and subsequent modification of one of the redundant copies. If you seriously think that new information is some kind of a problem, we can get into the details, either on this thread or on a new thread. It's a good thing to discuss because a lot of people are unaware of how easy new information is to make, and how often this has been observed.
Not only is the mechanism for the formation of a complex organ like the eye fully predicted (even in Darwin's origin of species, from 1859!), we have transitionals of many of the steps for things like the brain, eye, feather, and so on. Simply understanding natural selection is all that is needed to see how easily it naturally "assembles" and is "fine tuned". Yes, natural selection is nothing short of miraculous!
That God was absolutely forced to use strict, naturalistic means to form me in my mother's womb, and that he wasn't allowed to do anything else. That God is not allowed to step out of the bounds of what is a natural and observable gestation process. What a joke! I mean, it's obvious that every time a baby is born, God must be going into the womb and making little divine interventions to form the baby, since natural means obviously couldn't make organs and structures, after starting from a single cell!
Papias
The way I normally put it is that I accept universal common descent (and evolution) as the best current explanation for observed patterns in biodiversity.
given the common genetic traits between us and say....a banana...I voted yes.
As the species of [whatever] gets more advanced, the closer the DNA corresponds to human DNA, there is gene trending in a linear fashion, and this trend convinces me of macro-evolution
Unfortunately out understanding of genetics is nowhere near advanced enough to determine how similar they really are or what it would take for one species to become another at the genetic and molecular level (i.e. protein machines and DNA regulation and information processing).
Snap! Except I add '...based upon current evidence'.
I accept universal common descent (and evolution) as the best current explanation for observed patterns in biodiversity.
Do you believe in universal common descent?
That is, all life on earth is related to each other and shares a common ancestor with the first living cell(s)?
Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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?