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.
Again there are much better theory than your mutation theory. For example the theory that cooking made us human. Most theory for the evolution has to do with food to some degree. Often the nourishment we have can go to intelligence, strength, OR speed. Take your pick. The bird wants to fly so their energy is invested in strength for wings. The horse can be strong or fast. A race horse or a working horse. Need I go on?
Such as the squid.Such as?
So that shows the difficulty in linking animals together through their features. Evolutionists always have a get out clause. If its the same they say it shows a link. If its the same but unrelated it just happens to be convergent evolution and was a coincident even if it happens many times and there may even be genetics linking the two as well. Its easy for them to mistake a variation of the same creature for a different species as well. Thats why genetics is the only real evidence we can rely on.There are features that wolves and Chihuahuas don't share.
Name me one thing that couldn't fit the "common designer" hypothesis.
Again there are much better theory than your mutation theory. For example the theory that cooking made us human. Most theory for the evolution has to do with food to some degree. Often the nourishment we have can go to intelligence, strength, OR speed. Take your pick. The bird wants to fly so their energy is invested in strength for wings. The horse can be strong or fast. A race horse or a working horse. Need I go on?
That makes the shapes pretty broad then. You may be able to find some similarities with some bone structures. But the two are very different
All this can be the same evidence for common design. Afterall a car designer doesnt make a completely different car shape and features when he brings out different models.
Again there are much better theory than your mutation theory. For example the theory that cooking made us human.
Most theory for the evolution has to do with food to some degree. Often the nourishment we have can go to intelligence, strength, OR speed. Take your pick.
Again there are much better theory than your mutation theory. For example the theory that cooking made us human. Most theory for the evolution has to do with food to some degree. Often the nourishment we have can go to intelligence, strength, OR speed. Take your pick. The bird wants to fly so their energy is invested in strength for wings. The horse can be strong or fast. A race horse or a working horse. Need I go on?
Even if the driving force is natural selection. Neutrition is still important and the mutation theory is just a desperate attempt to explain where variation comes from rather than to accept that God puts variation into the DNA when He said let there be man.Notice how you change the question. The question wasn't what made us human. It was what gave us our intelligence that allowed us to be scientists. There is no other accepted theory in science for why humans are more intelligent than our ape cousins other than the genetic differences between us and those apes.
As for cooking, what it did was allow for certain mutations to flourish. In order for our cranium to get bigger our jaw muscles had to get weaker. As it turns out, we can find that mutation in the human genome.
Powerful masticatory muscles are found in most primates, including chimpanzees and gorillas, and were part of a prominent adaptation of Australopithecus and Paranthropus, extinct genera of the family Hominidae1, 2. In contrast, masticatory muscles are considerably smaller in both modern and fossil members of Homo. The evolving hominid masticatory apparatus—traceable to a Late Miocene, chimpanzee-like morphology3—shifted towards a pattern of gracilization nearly simultaneously with accelerated encephalization in early Homo4. Here, we show that the gene encoding the predominant myosin heavy chain (MYH) expressed in these muscles was inactivated by a frameshifting mutation after the lineages leading to humans and chimpanzees diverged.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6981/full/nature02358.html
Smaller jaw muscles means less dense bone and support needed to anchor those muscles. This allows the cranium to be thinner and have a larger volume. Your cooking theory doesn't work without the mutations.
Feeding the same food to chimps does not give them human intelligence.
Even if the driving force is natural selection. Neutrition is still important and the mutation theory is just a desperate attempt to explain where variation comes from rather than to accept that God puts variation into the DNA when He said let there be man.
Remember that in botney the plants themselves have to evolve to be more nutritious so the other species in that food chain can progress and develop. They become better at converting the light from the sun into life.
That is your current best guess. No one has a better explaination.We directly observe mutations producing variation. When has anyone ever observed God putting variation into DNA?
That evolution is produced by random mutations that are filtered through natural selection.
That is your current best guess. No one has a better explaination.
Yes design is amazing. All it does is show common design just as humans use when designing things.Actually, we find this exact bone structure in all tetrapods. The bones themselves may be shorter or longer, but this basic structure doesn't go away.
We also never find it in non-tetrapods. You will never find a fish with this bone structure. Homologous structures like this make perfect sense in the light of evolution, and they make testable predictions. By contrast...
The fundamental question is living things, nature, the earth and the universe and everything that allows them to function speak of design. It looks designed, it works like its designed. It has all the criteria for design that we use for absolutely everything that is made by humans. In fact it has far greater design especially when we look at the inner workings of things such as down at the genetic or particle level. So why do we all of a sudden begin to attribute some other description to life. How does something that is in every way designed as much or more than anything we've designed not be designed or be self creating to act and look designed. It is illogical and just doesn't make sense and the chances of it happening that way are impossible.Of course it could be! Name me one thing that couldn't fit the "common designer" hypothesis.
...See, this is the problem with intelligent design. It's fundamentally unfalsifiable. As I keep saying over and over again: no matter what the scenario, you can come up with some excuse for why the designer made things the way it did! Same goal, same structure? "Same design, same designer". Same goal, totally different structure (such as with the whale and the shark)? "The designer got bored". Bananas are perfect for human consumption? "The designer wanted us to have this lovely fruit." Pineapples eat our flesh? "The designer wants humans to work for it sometimes."
Or, to come back to the issue above, the intelligent design hypothesis could easily accommodate both never finding a fish with Ulna, Humerus, Radius, Carpals, Metacarpals, and Phalanges in that particular structure, and finding such a fish. Evolution makes a testable prediction here, one that has, thus far, borne out completely. Intelligent design does not.
Evolution is good at making general predictions and theories. But when it is looked at more closely it begins to break down. It predicts the way life should form in a tree back to a common ancestor. But when we look closely at the evidence such as the genetic evidence it starts to bring up contradictions. Many unrelated animals are linked and many related animals have in-congruences. This is overcome by coming up with new ideas like convergent evolution. This happens a lot when a contradiction comes up and so evolutions ends up with many new ideas added as time goes by to side step the problems it encounters. So evolution has ways of never being wrong and changing the goal posts all the time.A hypothesis which fits every potential line of evidence by definition makes no falsifiable predictions and is as a result completely useless and completely untestable. You cannot distinguish between a world in which the hypothesis is true and one in which it is false. That's an unworkable, useless idea.
The problem is with convergent evolution is that we are finding more and more of it. In some cases there is genetic evidence that is also linking these unrelated animals together. So rather than being linked as two animals that may share a evolutionary relationship which would contradict evolution it is put down to a coincident. The two animals happen to evolve the same and even obtain the same genes but are unrelated. So we are to believe that not only did this near impossible feat of evolving complex parts happen once but twice and even on several occasions in a very similar way independently.EDIT: I have been informed that while convergent evolution such as in the case of a fish with therapod bone structure should be rare, they are by no means impossible. My bad.
The fundamental question is living things, nature, the earth and the universe and everything that allows them to function speak of design. It looks designed, it works like its designed. It has all the criteria for design that we use for absolutely everything that is made by humans. In fact it has far greater design especially when we look at the inner workings of things such as down at the genetic or particle level. So why do we all of a sudden begin to attribute some other description to life.
How does something that is in every way designed as much or more than anything we've designed not be designed or be self creating to act and look designed. It is illogical and just doesn't make sense and the chances of it happening that way are impossible.
Evolution is good at making general predictions and theories. But when it is looked at more closely it begins to break down. It predicts the way life should form in a tree back to a common ancestor. But when we look closely at the evidence such as the genetic evidence it starts to bring up contradictions. Many unrelated animals are linked and many related animals have in-congruences. This is overcome by coming up with new ideas like convergent evolution. This happens a lot when a contradiction comes up and so evolutions ends up with many new ideas added as time goes by to side step the problems it encounters. So evolution has ways of never being wrong and changing the goal posts all the time.
It also uses circular reasoning in that the fossil evidence that life has evolved from simple to complex forms over the geological ages depends on the geological ages of the specific rocks in which these fossils are found. The rocks are then given geologic ages based on the fossil assemblages which they contain.
The problem is with convergent evolution is that we are finding more and more of it. In some cases there is genetic evidence that is also linking these unrelated animals together. So rather than being linked as two animals that may share a evolutionary relationship which would contradict evolution it is put down to a coincident. The two animals happen to evolve the same and even obtain the same genes but are unrelated.
We have computer engineers who can program a computer to do just that. Of course since it deals with national defense that information is classified.Made by nature. The fact that we made it does nothing to distract from the fact that we are a part of nature. And while we can distinguish this as made by humans... Well, with things like early cells, how would we distinguish that? "Made by designer"... Yes, but which designer? How can demonstrate the existence of the designer? Is the designer part of nature? How do we find its fingerprints? How do we distinguish between something made by the designer and something made by nature?
Just like? Try putting all existing vehicles into a nested hierarchy. I'll point out vehicles that don't fit your nested hierarchy.Yes design is amazing. All it does is show common design just as humans use when designing things.
Well that's a useful piece of non-evidence.We have computer engineers who can program a computer to do just that. Of course since it deals with national defense that information is classified.
Oh there is evidence as look at our guided missiles. The same way our brain is "wired" to recognize design.Well that's a useful piece of non-evidence.
Oh there is evidence as look at our guided missiles. The same way our brain is "wired" to recognize design.
There is no reason for evolution to produce a nested hierarchy.
According to the evolution myth a small land creature slowly transformed into a huge whale making a lot of changes yet with all those changes along the way so why did it keep it's boobs and hair? It's there a natural law that says once a creature evolves boobs it must never lose them. We have a fish turning in a land creature back to a sea creature but once boobs always boobs.
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?