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.
Hold on, is that an actual photo? But surely that means evolution is really real (for reals, this time).No. The bits that you make up that have nothing to do with the theory of evolution, we reject.
E.g.
Surely the lie is to start with Nature rather than with God. Who after all is the basis of all reality.
Creationists have no issue with useful science. Macroevolutionary theory and Abiogenetic theory are deceptions in the hands of many evolutionists because they imply to these theories a certainty that does not exist for them and label scientific what cannot be demonstrated with the scientific method in repeatable peer reviewed experiments.
Also Evolutionary theory is pretty much irrelevant to the useful work done by science over the last few centuries in the areas of industrial production and product development, in medicine, in construction, communications, space flight and indeed military technologies.
Please show your calculations. What is the rate of mutations to T? What is the rate from T?Because most of mutations replace cytosyne / guanine into thymine and if we are thousands of years old our DNA would be containing mostly thymine
I'm not sure what this means. Why would deleterious mutations be impossible according to the theory of evolution?Also there are spots which try to back off the mutation in our genes which means it was better before mutation occured that's impossible according to theory of evolution .
Biologically speaking, humans are just as hairy as other apes, in terms of the number of hairs (hair follicles) per area of skin. The difference is that human hair is mostly very short and fine. Two reasons this hair has been retained are that, contrary to what you suggest, it helps reduce the biting of bugs, and it improves the detection of bugs on the skin, compared to hairlessness. See The Not-So Naked Ape.Hair keeps people warm in cold and allows people to carry more parasites. Because humans have lived all over the earth including very warm climates where hair would be no advantage and very cold climates where they could make clothes to protect them from the cold the value of hair is less evident for temperature control. It is an advantage to have less hair from the point of view of lice, parasites etc.
Please show your calculations. What is the rate of mutations to T? What is the rate from T?
I'm not sure what this means. Why would deleterious mutations be impossible according to the theory of evolution?
Sure it does. Before we compared the human and chimpanzee genomes, I could tell you what we would find. The English word for that is "prediction". And the prediction was correct. Your problem is that I can make predictions and you can't, so you want to dismiss them.This does not really constitute predictions.
No. Based on common descent of humans and chimpanzees, I could predict how human and chimp DNA would differ. Based on special creation, you can't make a prediction.Based on an understanding of Chimp and Human DNA as they are you then "predict" that the ti/tv ratio is 2.1.
Um, right. You were appointed to be the arbiter of what constitutes a scientific theory when, exactly? We, the actual scientists getting paid to do science by science departments and science funders and to publish it in scientific journals, we think evolution is science. You don't. Whose opinion should carry more weight, do you think?Claiming to understand something you cannot duplicate is the falsity of modern biological science. A theory explains something when it can identify the causation to make this thing occur so that is can be duplicated.
No, don't link to a 35 minute video -- unless you're paying me, I'm not going to spend 35 minutes watching a video. Present the numbers. What's the mutation rate to T? What's the rate from T? You have to know these basic facts in order to make your claim, so what are they?
It wasn't really faulty - there's nothing intrinsically wrong with picking a geocentric viewpoint, and epicycles are a very effective solution - but a heliocentric model is just far simpler to work with.Ptolemy made accurate predictions about star and planet movement and still worked with a faulty model.
No, don't link to a 35 minute video -- unless you're paying me...
It wasn't really faulty - there's nothing intrinsically wrong with picking a geocentric viewpoint, and epicycles are a very effective solution - but a heliocentric model is just far simpler to work with.
No, don't link to a 35 minute video -- unless you're paying me, I'm not going to spend 35 minutes watching a video. Present the numbers. What's the mutation rate to T? What's the rate from T? You have to know these basic facts in order to make your claim, so what are they?
At the 7:40 mark he claims that a "study" (no reference given) found that conversion to thymine represent 58% of all point mutations. Therefore he interprets this as meaning that mutations will eventually lead to genomes full of nothing but thymine.
Studies of bias revealed that nucleotide mutation tended to go one way more frequently than the other (Freeman and Herron, 2001). Eyre-Walker (2002, p. 178) found that “there are many more GC —> AT than AT —> GC mutations, particularly in genes with high GC3” content. If this bias occurs even to a small extent, mutations would produce more and more thymines until eventually thymies[sic] would dominate the genome.
Thanks. This argument is pretty silly. G/C does indeed mutate to A/T more rapidly than A/T mutates to G/C, but the result isn't that the whole genome turns into A/T. Rather, the A/T composition of the genome increases until the total rate in the two directions is the same. I.e., each G/C has a greater chance of mutating, but there are more A/T basepairs, so the whole thing is in equilibrium. Now the human genome isn't actually in equilibrium, since transposons keep replicating, increasing the G/C content, but it's not that far off, at an A/T fraction of about 60%.At the 7:40 mark he claims that a "study" (no reference given) found that conversion to thymine represent 58% of all point mutations. Therefore he interprets this as meaning that mutations will eventually lead to genomes full of nothing but thymine.
Sure - my point was that, it wasn't flawed for its purpose (predicting the orbits of the planets, etc); as I understand it, it was actually better than Copernican heliocentrism in that it could model elliptical orbits, but for the observational data of the time it was computationally equivalent, if more laborious.Geocentric models with Epicycles work as far as locating a planet. But once you add gravity into the mix then you’re in trouble . It is a flawed model which works pretty well as a sort of a locator map. That’s science. Once we learn better, we do better
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?