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 we are talking about Dr Ornish's program. He convinced president Clinton and congress that his program works so there are now 40 insurance company's that pay for it. Just diet, exercise and stress control. People can avoid the need for drugs and surgery. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.They "believe". I would think that many snake oil salesmen "believe" that their product cures diseases as well.
No, you really can't do that. Most of the atoms of the DNA will have gone up the chimney.I have no scientific evidence right now for immortal. Other than I believe you can cremate the body and still have all the DNA information stored in the atoms in the ashes.
Again we are talking about Dr Ornish's program. He convinced president Clinton and congress that his program works so there are now 40 insurance company's that pay for it. Just diet, exercise and stress control. People can avoid the need for drugs and surgery. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
He is a clinic, the director of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute. Every patient that goes through the program improves. Again, that is why insurance company's pay for it, because it has been proven to work. He has many many publications to that effect in cardiology and oncology journals. The most rigorous and credible peer reviewed evaluations. Also his program is in at least five medical books. You know the books doctors study when they go to medical school. But if you want to try to defend junk food and the merits of being a couch potato and the advantages of dysfunctional relationships then give it your best shot.Where are the scientific clinical trials?
In case you're interested. And here. Might give you some interesting areas to explore.I have no scientific evidence right now for immortal. Other than I believe you can cremate the body and still have all the DNA information stored in the atoms in the ashes.
Sorry nobody floundering here, i just acknowledge the fact that there as there nothing to differentiate the 1000+ gods that humanity have believed in, in all liklehood either god/gods created the universe and went on holiday, or there is a natural explanation. The natural being more likely.It can't be proven that "God did it" of course, but in the absence of any evidence for an alternative explanation, it's just as valid as saying that some unknown cause was the reason that we have something rather than nothing. Christian's put their faith in God being the cause because we believe that the Bible is divine revelation from our maker. The atheist has to put his/her faith in something else and that is why those without the Christian faith are floundering trying to find an explanation that will never be found.
I think to much is read into selection being not random. It is selective as far as allowing those that have any physical traits that will give them an advantage over others for survival. But that is not something that evolution will know and continue to be directed towards. Its not as if the process will give an animals a bit of a wing or biological system and then natural selection knows that it needs to add the rest of whatever it started in the future. Its still random as far as both mutations and selection working together are concerned. If it was so selective in that sense then you may as well say there was some intelligence involved.Selection is not random.
Often, yes, but not always, and the mutations which convey a positive benefit tend to be passed on. This claim is simply not tenable, and there is virtually nobody in biology or genetics who believes that evolution cannot account for the diversity of life on earth.Mutations are an error in the copying process of what is already good. So overall there is a fittest cost.
It can account for the diversity and variety of creatures within their kinds but it cant account for all of the earths creatures coming from a single ancestor or creating new types of creatures from existing ones. The process to make new and different genetic info from genetic ability that is not there in the first place has not been seen or demonstrated. You can change a fly and add extra wings, a antenna where an eye is or extra eyes. But you cant turn a fly into a grass hopper or cockroach.Often, yes, but not always, and the mutations which convey a positive benefit tend to be passed on. This claim is simply not tenable, and there is virtually nobody in biology or genetics who believes that evolution cannot account for the diversity of life on earth.
Do you honestly think this is what the TOE states?It can account for the diversity and variety of creatures within their kinds but it cant account for all of the earths creatures coming from a single ancestor or creating new types of creatures from existing ones. The process to make new and different genetic info from genetic ability that is not there in the first place has not been seen or demonstrated. You can change a fly and add extra wings, a antenna where an eye is or extra eyes. But you cant turn a fly into a grass hopper or cockroach.
You'll never see a jar of peanut butter turn into life, either.It can account for the diversity and variety of creatures within their kinds but it cant account for all of the earths creatures coming from a single ancestor or creating new types of creatures from existing ones. The process to make new and different genetic info from genetic ability that is not there in the first place has not been seen or demonstrated. You can change a fly and add extra wings, a antenna where an eye is or extra eyes. But you cant turn a fly into a grass hopper or cockroach.
If a creature hasn't got the genetic info to make something it hasn't got like wings, organs or systems like a sexual reproduction system in the first place then evolution cannot create the genetic info to produce these features out of existing genetics as far as I understand. What evolutionists do is take the ability of a creature to add new variations within its species and then extends that to say that this same process can also create new creatures from existing ones.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
I dont know you tell me. Doesn't evolution say that all life started from bacteria in some pool or ocean. So everything can be traced back to that. So the fly to grass hopper may not be the best example. But if we use say the Dino to bird or the dog like creature Pakicetus to whale example we can see the same type of thing. There would have to be many changes in the genetics and features of these to be able to transform from one to another.Do you honestly think this is what the TOE states?
It can account for the diversity and variety of creatures within their kinds but it cant account for all of the earths creatures coming from a single ancestor or creating new types of creatures from existing ones. The process to make new and different genetic info from genetic ability that is not there in the first place has not been seen or demonstrated.
You can change a fly and add extra wings, a antenna where an eye is or extra eyes. But you cant turn a fly into a grass hopper or cockroach.
If a creature hasn't got the genetic info to make something it hasn't got like wings, organs or systems like a sexual reproduction system in the first place then evolution cannot create the genetic info to produce these features out of existing genetics as far as I understand.
What evolutionists do is take the ability of a creature to add new variations within its species and then extends that to say that this same process can also create new creatures from existing ones.
Why in the thousands of generations of fly evolution tests in labs have we not seen a fly become something else besides a fly. They have varied many things on the fly such as adding extra wings, more eyes and pacing its existing parts in new places on its body. But they have not added anything new as far as features are concerned in which it hasn't already got. In other words all they are doing is playing around with the existing genetics and changing what it already has.Beg your pardon? This is complete nonsense. The mechanisms for making "new genetic info" are well-understood. Just to name one obvious example: gene duplication can create new gene sequences to work with without affecting organism fitness, allowing for the generation of new genetic "information".
http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/how-doe...ion-required-go-single-celled-life-complex-an
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
This is genetics 101
I'm not sure what you want to observe, to be honest. Speciation events? We've observed those. New genetic information? We've observed that. Do you want to observe populations split into heavily disparate clades? You're asking for something which cannot be provided within a human lifetime
No this is one of the only examples that evolutionists keep using and its been shown not to be the case for evolution. They are still bacteria. The new functions are derived from the existing genetic info that is in the gene pool of those bacteria. Or it happens from a change or loss of function of the existing genes. Nothing new is introduced from outside. Bacteria also have a high ability to have HGT. So they can gain genetic info from other bacteria horizontally as well.Then you do not understand genetics. I'm sorry, but this is really, really basic. This has been known for decades, and we have directly observed things like bacteria developing new functions not known at any point within the species or at all (enzymes for nylonase and the ability to consume aerobic citrate)
Is that the same as trying to unscramble am egg?You'll never see a jar of peanut butter turn into life, either.
I did a study once of the cause of death of ancient pre civilization skeletons they find. Everyone I found was killed, people did not die from natural causes. This was Cains concern, he said: "I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”In case you're interested. And here. Might give you some interesting areas to explore.
How many people did you find and where did you find them?I did a study once of the cause of death of ancient pre civilization skeletons they find. Everyone I found was killed, people did not die from natural causes. This was Cains concern, he said: "I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”
Evolution is descent with modification. What do you expect? A fly to "evolve" into a finch? That's not what evolution is.Why in the thousands of generations of fly evolution tests in labs have we not seen a fly become something else besides a fly. They have varied many things on the fly such as adding extra wings, more eyes and pacing its existing parts in new places on its body. But they have not added anything new as far as features are concerned in which it hasn't already got. In other words all they are doing is playing around with the existing genetics and changing what it already has.
We would expect the fly to evolve into a different sort of insect. A dragonfly or something. Yet you start with a fly and you end up with a fly. Lots of evidence for micro evolution, no evidence for macro evolution.Evolution is descent with modification. What do you expect? A fly to "evolve" into a finch? That's not what evolution is.
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?