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.
oh, okay.Yes, that is exactly what I meant. You are claiming the same thing that they claim against my arguments and yours.
i don't know, for some reason i just don't buy the "god" bit.God doesn't obey laws He created them. So I am not sure what you mean.
Correct.Ok, who was on the ark? Noah, his sons, and his sons wives, correct?
So all males on the ark were noah and the sons of noah. So all new children would be descendants of noah. Hence, noah would be the last universal male ancestor.Correct.
(And don't forget Mrs. Noah.)
Well I'm sure how that works.So all males on the ark were noah and the sons of noah. So all new children would be descendants of noah. Hence, noah would be the last universal male ancestor.
Almost certainly not. After all, there was intermarriage after Shem.Well I'm sure how that works.
After all, wouldn't the "last universal male ancestor" for the Jews be Shem?
the work of Motoo Kimura, Tomoko Ohta, and others, have shown both theoretically and empirically that natural selection has little or no effect on the vast majority of the genomes of most living organisms.Link to credible sources stating that it has been "proven" that natural selection has "little to no effect on the vast majority of organisms"?
Whereas Dawkins, et al have demonstrated that natural selection and genetics are tightly woven together.the work of Motoo Kimura, Tomoko Ohta, and others, have shown both theoretically and empirically that natural selection has little or no effect on the vast majority of the genomes of most living organisms.
a synopsis of kimura, jukes, and kings work:Can you link us to the specific source which supports your claims?
The Wiki article on the neutral theory of molecular evolution seems to suggest the exact opposite of your claim that it has been proven that natural selection has "little to no effect" on the majority of organisms.a synopsis of kimura, jukes, and kings work:
According to the neutral theory, a substantial majority of the mutations that are fixed in the course of evolution are selectively neutral so that fixation occurs via random drift. A corollary of this theory is that gene sequences evolve in an approximately clock-like manner (in support of the original molecular clock hypothesis of Zuckerkandl and Pauling) whereas episodic beneficial mutations subject to natural selection are sufficiently rare to be safely disregarded for a quantitative description of the evolutionary process.
it must be pointed out that the "nearly neutral" theory is more accurate.
it's apparent to me that genetic drift is responsible for the majority of the changes we see in evolution, not natural selection.
Neutral theory does not deny the occurrence of natural selection. Hughes writes: "Evolutionary biologists typically distinguish two main types of natural selection: purifying selection, which acts to eliminate deleterious mutations; and positive (Darwinian) selection, which favors advantageous mutations. Positive selection can, in turn, be further subdivided into directional selection, which tends toward fixation of an advantageous allele, and balancing selection, which maintains a polymorphism. The neutral theory of molecular evolution predicts that purifying selection is ubiquitous, but that both forms of positive selection are rare, whereas not denying the importance of positive selection in the origin of adaptations."[9] In another essay, Hughes writes: "Purifying selection is the norm in the evolution of protein coding genes. Positive selection is a relative rarity — but of great interest, precisely because it represents a departure from the norm."[10] A more general and more recent view of molecular evolution is presented by Nei.[8]
Consol???? The true blue Consol?
That statement is in complete abandonment of intuitive logic. Atheist scientists today have done a great job at shaping minds into not wondering into any other form of reasoning other than analytical, because intuitive logic breaks the biases reaped from base analysis.
Creationists have an intuitive mind, and deduce automatically such possibilities that even with the alleged overwhelming evidence, it's really just what one wants to perceive. If you want to see evolution, then you'll see evolution. But if you want to see creationism, you'll see God shifting the Earth, cultivating it through animals who die out and then created, fish on mountaintops and oil at sea floors from a catastrophic flood- an entire world of life hand crafted by God and moved at His will.
The logic of evolution is built on the premise that everything has to come about and continued on by it's own accord. The problem is, without an answer of origin or breathing force, that idea is just that- an idea. And so is evolution.
ah yes, i see.
there is about 4 or 5 definitions for natural selection.
It is not that we haven't figured it out yet as much as what we do know makes it pretty much impossible by natural means. Just as spontaneous generation bit the dust, it more than likely happen to all other such models.
didn't you read post 213?There are? Could you list them for us?
probably the entire scientific community.Who is this we of which you speak?
didn't you read post 213?
probably the entire scientific community.
don't forget, post 213 comes from wiki, hardly a respected science source.Yeah, it lists several types of natural selection. I don't see 4 or 5 different definitions for natural selection which was your assertion.
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?