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.
Evolution itself is the central religious creation story of universal common descent that you believe in.
Beautiful, another creationist using religion and belief as insults. Next he will claim that Christianity is not a religion.
Not orphan genes -- thousands of orphan genes in humans but not in chimps. I do know what "orphan gene" means. (A moderately intelligent six grader could figure out what it means just from its context here.)
Uh, right.Aren't you supposed to be some kind of scientist? Your true colors are starting to show...
Not orphan genes -- thousands of orphan genes in humans but not in chimps. I do know what "orphan gene" means. (A moderately intelligent six grader could figure out what it means just from its context here.)
Uh, right.
Evolution itself is the central religious creation story of universal common descent that you believe in.
A 'model' of Evolution would be.. say.. evolution of birds from dinosaurs, or some other sub-theory like that.
What is a "committed believer?" I accept the theory of evolution as it is the best scientific explanation for the diversity and distribution of life on earth, and because it has not been falsified. That is all.
I have often said here that you cannot escape your ancestry. This is why it is quite incorrect to say that evolution can "potentially build anything." Evolution is constrained by
1. physical requirements
2. heredity
This is why horses with feathered wings and giant ants as big as a car do not exist in the real world.
Sure there is. Some details are still controversial, but for the most part it consistent between morphology/ chemistry and genetics.
How so? The fact is that no pesticide or antibiotic has ever eliminated a target organism. Other factors must be utilized, such as mass vaccination, and elimination of other host species to serve as reservoirs, etc. We succeeded with smallpox, only because it requires a human host. Polio is also doable, but still hangs on in Africa because of inefficient application of the mass vaccination programs required.
Either it is incomplete (or nearly so) or it is not. You have admitted it is incomplete. Now you are vacillating.
I used jaws as an example, only. There are many other features that evolved in this transition and are documented in the fossil record. Others are not documented because they require soft tissue; in some cases these can be inferred from the fossils.
Various features of a transition do not always change at the same time. This is not a problem.
We are dealing with many different populations in many different environments and locations over a long time period. Therefore, such a scenario is not impossible.
Is the trait one that tends not to fossilize?
When we look at derived features, we tend to find them in only more advanced species. For example, let's look at whales. Primitive whales all have teeth, and not baleen. Baleen is a derived feature, whereas teeth are a primitive one. Also, the blowhole tends to be closer to the tip of the snout, also a primitive feature. Blow holes are derived. We also find that primitive whales have four legs rather than just two... another example of the derived trait being found where expected. Is this all just a coincidence?
It has to do with being able to breathe while eating. If that provides an advantage, it will be selected for.
The largest estimate I've seen for brand new human genes (missing in chimpanzee as well as other apes) is 60. That study is controversial, however. Gene duplication is more common, but harder to pin down numbers for.What is the number of chimp genes not found in humans and human genes not found in chimps (ignoring duplication and pseudogenes)? It is somewhere between 50 and 500, isn't it?
For the most part similar types of organisms have similar molecular traits as well, so there is of course a "consistence" to life which evolutionists disguise as a pattern of common descent, however there is no objective nested hierarchy of common descent. I've provided examples of this in the OP. Evolutionists can not even objectively distinguish a homology from a convergence.
Within ToE, "Evolution" is actually treated as a vague, mysterious creative power. The data can be entirely contradictory and still be absorbed as 'something evolution did'.
This is because ToE is built on a metaphysical worldview, and not the rigid prediction-falsification criteria found in real scientific theories.
I can find any pro-Evolution presentation and you will hear them saying something like "we don't find mammals below this rock layer" ... "we don't find terrestrial organisms below this rock layer" etc. etc. "therefore Evolution!"
This is a gigantic bluff. Like I said, if a fossil pattern had emerged where major taxa groups appeared in different rock layers, than the ToE would have been developed around that pattern.
I'm talking about what committed believers think those mechanisms can do. They turn natural selection into a superstitious magical force that can potentially build anything - just add time.
This is also an example of that vague magical force that evolutionists make natural selection out to be. Though they have no clue why NS would even begin to favor gradually morphing a jawbone into an ear-bone, they are positive it happened because NS can do anything.
Differences between humans and chimpanzees would be regarded as something natural selection did.
Humans have thousands of functional "orphan" genes not found in chimpanzees. This is regarded as something natural selection did.
Similar rationalization would be used for a chromosomal discrepancy. Maybe it would make humans and chimps far more divergent than previously thought, though of course they would still be argued to share a recent common ancestor.
(by the way, Ken Miller's simplistic descriptions of Chromosome#2 are about as dubious as the claim of 98% similarity between Humans and Chimps)
Oh please, from an evolutionary perspective, do tell why a mammal could not possibly ever have evolved feathers or wings. This is always fun, because your theory has no such constraints. Another evolutionist on here played this card and ended up having to backpedal to the position that such mammalian feathers would not be 100% identical to birds, (which would be kind of silly to expect since even closely related "homologies" can be quite different.)
I love when Creationists act like evolution is just natural selection and not mutations plus selection. I love it more when you can't tell whether they are ignorant of that fact or they think we're stupid enough to be ignorant of that fact.
It is interesting to notice this. Creationists often seem to be unable to discuss mutations and natural selection at the same time. Both are essential parts of evolution theory, and many of their arguments seem to be merely pointing out how mutations alone or natural selection alone cannot sustain evolution.
Mutations and natural selection don't cause change the way you want it to or think it produces change. It only produces variation within a species.
If it does what you think it does then you could simply change an amoeba into a goat. Can you do that? If you can't then you're just presenting a "what if".
Mutations and natural selection don't cause change the way you
want it to or think it produces change. It only produces variation within
a species.
If it does what you think it does then you could simply change an
amoeba into a goat. Can you do that? If you can't then you're just
presenting a "what if".
Mutations and natural selection don't cause change the way you
want it to or think it produces change. It only produces variation within
a species.
If it does what you think it does then you could simply change an
amoeba into a goat. Can you do that? If you can't then you're just
presenting a "what if".
Lies. I ended up having to do nothing of the sort. I explained, and you failed to comprehend, that:
- There's nothing that prevents mammals from evolving structures that would be functionally analogous to bird feathers. They simply would not be bird feathers.
- There's nothing that prevents mammals from evolving structures that would have a similar appearance to bird feathers. They simply would not be bird feathers though.
- If mammals were to evolve bird feathers, then evolution would be falsified.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Quick! Someone contact Douglas Theobald and tell him to edit out all the prediction and potential falsification sections of "29 Evidences".
I love when Creationists act like evolution is just natural selection and not mutations plus selection. I love it more when you can't tell whether they are ignorant of that fact or they think we're stupid enough to be ignorant of that fact.
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?