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.
Your post is not exactly coherent. Your belief has nothing to do with it. How natural selection works is well understood. It appears that all you have is denial of science while the other side has mountains of evidence. If you ever watch court trials the side with all of the evidence wins. Creationists cannot seem to demonstrate any scientific evidence for their beliefs. Do you care to explain their failures?I doubt the 'capacity' for natural selection to select, and you can't say mutations are not the ones building though, if mutation don't build there is nothing for selection to select.
I doubt the 'capacity' for natural selection to select, i 'know of the 'selection' part but you can't say mutations are not the ones building though, if mutation don't build there is nothing for selection to select. That was my point.
I'll answer your first question now. I was taught evolution pretty much from "Origin of Species". It included trips to the Natural History Museum in London, courtesy of my Grandmother. There you could see the now discredited evolutionary progression of horses from creatures the size of a sheep to the the giant carthorse. All very logical and plausible. Just wrong. The now known to be fake Haeckel drawings were also in our textbooks.
Simple answer is that they were not "descended" from anything. They were created.So how has the 'evolutionary progression of horses' been discredited? If modern horses are not descended from Eocene ancestors (such as Eohippus or Hyracotherium) that were the size of a sheep, what ancestors are they descended from, and where did these ancestors come from?
And...what evidence do you have that horses or any other "kind" was just spawned out of nothing? Are horses made of something specific like how Adam and Eve were supposedly made from dust? Perhaps oats? It's fascinating the lengths one will go to in order to just avoid acknowledging the problems with a literal inerrantist interpretation of a text clearly not meant to be scientific except by a stretch of that word.Simple answer is that they were not "descended" from anything. They were created.
Simple answer is that they were not "descended" from anything. They were created.
Curious, you accept evolution of dogs but not horses. How odd.
Not at all. Dog breeds were deliberately bred by people with a specific objective in mind. However, if the genetic information was not contained in the original mongrel dogs, they could not have been selectively bred. And never will I accept that adaptation is evolution.Curious, you accept evolution of dogs but not horses. How odd.
And...what evidence do you have that horses or any other "kind" was just spawned out of nothing?
No one said horses themselves pop out of that, because evolution doesn't work that way,, showing that you don't remotely understand that it's a gradual process and isn't just spontaneous to that degree, as if humans just poofed out of primordial soup, no, it was billions of years leading to human ancestors we can trace back in fossil record and even DNA to an extentMore to the point "what evidence do you have that horses or any other kind will pop out of rocks, dust, gas and sunlight given enough time and chance?"
Consider that a man can turn a rabbit into dust into a single day. That is a given.
An infinite being with all power and all knowledge can turn dust into a rabbit in a single day.
But rocks, dust, gas, and sunlight will never turn into a horse ... nor even be able to turn a bacteria into a horse ... in all of time. They don't "have that as a property of matter" and they don't have the ability to "acquire the skill over time"
No one says adaptation itself is evolution, that's patently a strawmanNot at all. Dog breeds were deliberately bred by people with a specific objective in mind. However, if the genetic information was not contained in the original mongrel dogs, they could not have been selectively bred. And never will I accept that adaptation is evolution.
No one said horses themselves pop out of that, .
Dogs from prior ancestors that they share with other canids and general carnivores. Or do you just throw out taxonomy entirely because you don't agree with the classification based on common ancestry rather than "I Dream of Genie" popping stuff out of nowhere?Dogs from what? -- bacteria?
The starting conditions for going from dust to rabbit or dust to horse in the Bible - starts with Earth having no atmosphere, no vegetation, no life.
Most evolutionists will agree that in their own stories - earth also starts in such a condition.
====================
From there - even though they use different story lines, they all claim that you eventually get to "rabbit" and "horse".
Same start conditions... same end points.
So that point remains.
Oh, I think he could if he wanted. What he is posting is merely rhetorical.No it really doesn't, we're not absolutely certain of the state of earth 4 billion years ago, because it's difficult to track things back that far with the kind of precision we'd need, given the vast amount of variables that come into play from the initial state to the present
And again, incorrect, because creationism, far as I can gather, just says these kinds just popped up out of nowhere and conveniently, were small enough in number to fit on a boat that even by generous estimates, would not be able to contain everything unless you vastly oversimplified taxonomy
Evolution is not talking about abiogenesis, you're conflating that and evolution as the same thing, but they are two different aspects of biology in terms of scientific investigation, but I'm skeptical you could enumerate the differences or even explain what a scientific theory is.
People come across mysteries all the time. Recently, a metal pole appeared for no apparent reason in Arizona. Was it formed over millions of years by volcanic action or some kind of crystal growth? No way. That theory is utterly implausible. No animal could done it. It had all the hallmarks of a human's work. I find it just as implausible as life evolving from nothing. The reason I believe that God created all that we see is simple. He said so. I see the evidence of what He did before my eyes. And who decided that science was some kind of infallible god that everyone must bow down and worship? Science is as good or bad as humanity itself. Evolution is bad science. I could care less about science. My interest is in truth. If science happens to stumble on truth, good. Evolution denies truth.And...what evidence do you have that horses or any other "kind" was just spawned out of nothing? Are horses made of something specific like how Adam and Eve were supposedly made from dust? Perhaps oats? It's fascinating the lengths one will go to in order to just avoid acknowledging the problems with a literal inerrantist interpretation of a text clearly not meant to be scientific except by a stretch of that word.
No, clearly you think there's demonstrable evidence that horses just popped out of the ether or something by divine power, that's far more rational than a gradual change over many generations
No abiogenesis, no evolution. It's yet another dishonest intellectual trick by evolutionist to dodge an issue that they cannot explain. There are a number of sources that explain how animals could indeed be saved by Noah's Ark. Of course, none of these are acceptable because they don't fit evolutionist prejudices.No it really doesn't, we're not absolutely certain of the state of earth 4 billion years ago, because it's difficult to track things back that far with the kind of precision we'd need, given the vast amount of variables that come into play from the initial state to the present
And again, incorrect, because creationism, far as I can gather, just says these kinds just popped up out of nowhere and conveniently, were small enough in number to fit on a boat that even by generous estimates, would not be able to contain everything unless you vastly oversimplified taxonomy
Evolution is not talking about abiogenesis, you're conflating that and evolution as the same thing, but they are two different aspects of biology in terms of scientific investigation, but I'm skeptical you could enumerate the differences or even explain what a scientific theory is.
Noah's ArkSo how does that actually work, genetics wise? How does a single "mongrel dog" posses genes of all those different breeds? Are any novel genes arising during the selective breeding of dogs? Or do the ancestral populations posses all possible genetic variants?
Pretend you're explaining this to someone who knows nothing about genetics. How would you explain the above?
Also, did you read through the reference you cited? And have you checked any of the citations in that particular reference? I asked, because I'm reading through a cited reference on how novel ACSL4 and IGSF1 gene variants arose. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that. How do you think those novel ACSL4 and IGSF1 variants arose? Analysis of large versus small dogs reveals three genes on the canine X chromosome associated with body weight, muscling and back fat thickness
(I'm also curious if you're a subscriber to the Noah's Ark/global flood scenario. I don't recall your views on this. E.g. do you believe that all current living animals were derived from a limited number about ~4000 years ago?
Also, do you believe that dogs are descended from wolves? E.g. humans domesticated wolves. Or do you believe there are separate wolf and dog kinds?)
So how does artificial selection affect the genetics in question?
Where did that variations come from though? For example, I cited a specific example above re: ACSL4 and IGSF1 gene variants. Where did those variants come from?
How is this not evolution? In terms of mechanisms, how is what you are describing different from evolution?
Not true. First life could have been planted here. It could have been magically poofed into existence. Or it could have arisen naturally. Only the thread qualifies as abiogenesis.No abiogenesis, no evolution. It's yet another dishonest intellectual trick by evolutionist to dodge an issue that they cannot explain. There are a number of sources that explain how animals could indeed be saved by Noah's Ark. Of course, none of these are acceptable because they don't fit evolutionist prejudices.
Abiogenesis is so far fetched that it is virtually impossible. Check out Professor James Tour for the best explanation as to why. 70 years of research has proven fruitless. If it can't be done in a lab, how is it possible in nature? Oh, I know. The Evolution Fairy sprinkled Evo dust on a dirt puddle in Africa. Now all we need to know is where the Evolution Fairy came from. And where she is now. We want answers! Not the truth, that would be too much.Not true. First life could have been planted here. It could have been magically poofed into existence. Or it could have arisen naturally. Only the thread qualifies as abiogenesis.
The fact is that the answer probably is abiogenesis and scientists have solved quite a few of the problems of abiogenesis.
And no, Noah's Ark has been refuted even more strongly than the Garden of Eden story. One of my favorite arguments, mainly because it is a bit quirky and creationists simply do not be able to understand it is the fact that you are in no danger of waking up in an ice filled bathtub missing a kidney in a seedy motel on the wrong side of two is evidence against the Noah's Ark story.
Now the question is, why is it evidence against that story?
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?