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.
"Image" has to with appearance.
I see you have no clue of science but that's fine. The fact that you write "God" with a small g explains a lot. May He have mercy on you!
I've looked at the theory of evolution in detail, that's why I reject it. Survival of the fittest? Yes. Adaption to environment? Yes. Genetic differences over time that lead to biodiversity? Yes. But macro-evolution, from amoeba to man, is utter nonsense even from a scientific point of view.
Based on a couple decades of conversing with creationists and more broadly Christians in general, I've come away with two basic conclusions re: creationism:
1) It's not required for salvation by Jesus Christ.
2) It's not derived on the basis of God's Creation.
I don't otherwise see the point of adopting creationist beliefs.
I don't think it is actually possible for asays the creationist, i obviously understand science better then you if I accept evolution. I've been studying for over 20 years, and seen the lies, misrepresentations about science and evolution why I reject it. If you can't actually show why evolution is wrong without lying why should anyone trust you?
Hard to find to find a scientist who agrees with
that, but good you did your diligence.
Could you explain how lots of micro
fails to add up to macro?
A specific point at which it can go no further?
Which is, if anything, a confirmation of the theory. It certainly isn't an argument against evolution. Natural selection reduces the information content of the gene pool; random mutation increases it. the practical effect is on the standard deviation of the random distribution of variation. When the information content of the gene pool decreases, the standard deviation decreases as well and the range of variants produced with each generation of offspring is smaller, slowing or stopping evolution. The same thing happens with selective breeding, only it happens more rapidly. Forced selection depletes the information content of the gene pool faster than it can be replenished by natural means and the organism becomes dysfunctional.What we DO observe is that even with forced selective pressure, there are limits to change beyond which the organism becomes dysfunctional e.g. dogs or cattle breeding
Which is, if anything, a confirmation of the theory. It certainly isn't an argument against evolution. Natural selection reduces the information content of the gene pool; random mutation increases it. the practical effect is on the standard deviation of the random distribution of variation. When the information content of the gene pool decreases, the standard deviation decreases as well and the range of variants produced with each generation of offspring is smaller, slowing or stopping evolution. The same thing happens with selective breeding, only it happens more rapidly. Forced selection depletes the information content of the gene pool faster than it can be replenished by natural means and the organism becomes dysfunctional.
Which is it? Randomly distributed variation or "pure chance?" You have to make up your mind exactly what you are arguing against.That's the irony in this title
'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection'
As you point out, natural selection originates nothing, it only destroys/reduces options, it is a destructive/ filtering process- you begin with a larger number of options and are left with fewer- the Darwinian tree of life is turned upside down by natural selection.
That leaves only 'random variation/mutation' aka pure chance, to fight upstream against this force without direction... that is problematic for the theory
The claim is that a single celled bacteria-like organism could have evolved through random mutation into a human being.
In terms of validating this claim scientifically- we have got as far as - more bacteria - that leaves a lot up to speculation.
What we DO observe is that even with forced selective pressure, there are limits to change beyond which the organism becomes dysfunctional e.g. dogs or cattle breeding
Hmm. Is the idea that if you cant do it in a short time
in a lab, its not possible out there in millions of yesrs?
Are you arguing against multicellular organism being able to
evolve to multicellular?
It is well known that many living organism,
plant, bacteria and animal can live as single cells, or, as
coopersting colonies .
That is a start on multicellular. The next step, the next and next can
also seen in living organisms. Do I need to describe?
If you can identify one specific point at which evolution
can go so far but no further, that would be of great interest.
Especially. If you could identify the mechanism that stops
further mutation, "so far but no further".
I don't believe it has been demonstrated that selective breeding
can only end in a "dysfunctional" organism.
Are you stating it as a fact?
Which is it? Randomly distributed variation or "pure chance?" You have to make up your mind exactly what you are arguing against.
But it does not require millions of years for the experiment to fail, it fails within a few generations.
Farmers knew this when Darwin published 'Origin..' they had already been testing the theory for thousands of years
I don't think it's a coincidence that it took someone unusually removed from practical knowledge of breeding to popularize the theory.
It is known that DNA is structured hierarchically, e.g. the gene regulatory system controls which genes are applied to certain parts of the body plan.
i.e.- it's not that animals cannot necessarily go through great morphological change, but it is not achieved gradually through common small variation as Darwin proposed- (hence punctuated equilibrium) this is also supported by the staccato nature of the fossil record. Where new body plans appear abruptly in the record and remain in stasis often for hundreds of millions of years with no significant change thereafter
No, they are very far from being the same. That's why I asked the question.same
How do you do that? What are you using for a bell curve?if I choose my stock picks by random distribution, I am leaving it to pure chance
You are just confirming what I said, you can't expect fast results.
Cook a steak in a microwave.
Punctuated equilibrium...a source of much misunderstanding,
That there are gaps in the fossil record is obvious, though
they are getting smaller and fewer- keeping in mind that
paleontology is not at all well funded.
Could you tell me about sudden appearances in the
transition from fish to amphibian?
Changes that could not have
evolved but must have appeared some other way?
it is a fast result though, dysfunction is achieved over a short period of time/ # of generations.
Okay, but 'the dog ate my homework' does not earn an A+!
The gaps are getting smaller as in sharper, shorter, more pronounced,
In Darwin's day the Cambrian explosion was predicted to be an artifact of an incomplete record, to be filled in/ smoothed out later with more finds. Whereas it has only become ever more explosive with more finds.
Evolved perhaps if defined as changed, but how the change occurs is less clear.
Whereas it has only become ever more explosive with more finds.
Again you confirm that its not something
that can be rushed.
Your "dog ate homework" is wholly inappropriate
in content and style. I will refrain from insults,
please go forth and do likewise.
I am unaware of gaps getting sharper and
more pronounced. Explosive?? Examples?
What body plans " suddenly appear" then
don't change ?
Two questions, please give examples.
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?