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.
This is the very example I am talking about where the evidence is interpreted differently by those who believe in the theory of Darwinian evolution and those who don't. What we see now in humans with the variations of skin color, size, shapes of heads is the natural variation within the human species. These features are passed down from our parents and will mix and change according to who our parents are. But we are not going to change into reptilians or any other new species because of these variations.
The only thing predicted is that all animals will have similar features because they occupy a similar environment. They were all given these similar features because that is what they need to live and survive. When you design something you dont change the design for different models if they are all going to do basically the same thing. they all need lungs because of the air we breath. They all need legs to walk or wings to fly ect. The legs and features may come in different shapes and sized but they all do basically the same thing. Its as simple as that.
Evolution has looked at what is out there and made the theory accordingly. Darwin originally said that we should see a blending of all creatures. But what we see is separate definite type of creatures. Evolution just finds similar features in different animals and assumes that one produced the other.
I havnt thrown out any faith based explanation. I have thrown out an evidenced based explanation from scientists who are experts in evolution. What evolution is doing is having a faith based view of the evidence. The assumption that one creature turned into another from an original micro organism has not been verified by the scientific method of falsification with tests. So it is based on an assumption from what is interpreted which is a faith based position.
I thought it had nothing to do with random mutations. It is the horizontal passing of genetic material including complete genes between living things. This can happen with distant unrelated living things as well which means there is no mutational changes going on but a direct injection of new genetic material being passed across. This bypasses the evolutionary process. It can also happen through viruses as a third party which gets passed from one creature to another. or through symbiosis where different living things share the environment and genetic material is passed from one to another through their environment.
No I think you are misinterpreting things. And this is what evolution has been doing. Because they want to hold onto the old traditional interpretation of Darwinian evolution and they can't accept that it may play a minor role or no role at all in how creatures get their genetic info and change. What the scientists are saying is that there was too much credit given to Darwinian evolution to create genetic changes. That it is non Darwinian mechanisms like HGT or that living things already had the ability to draw upon pre existing genetic info so they could change and this has been the case going back as far as the evidence goes.
You must be joking. I think in all the debates I have had with anyone I have linked more evidence than any. I have just listed many links to evidence now which you are ignoring or dismissing. yet at the same time I havnt seen any form you so I think its the other way around.
It isn't just about HGT. There are other processes including pre existing genetic info being responsible for how creatures can change. But as I said there is limits and there is a trend towards a fitness cost with mutations. To get even a small functional change in proteins you would need a massive amount of mutations which bring more loss of info and harm in the end to be capable of sustaining any long term changes or changes too far away from what was already was the best and fittest state.
From the Origin of the species. "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?…
But it doesn't. First there is a lot of HGT in eukaryotes
In the case of how creatures change the tree of life is more like a forest of life. There are many trunks which have stemmed out to produce the different groups of animals. There can be a certain level of common ancestry through this. But the process for change comes from existing genetic material that is tapped into and switched on or off when needed. This means that though there may have been certain original creatures they produced a great variety of other creatures from their genetic material.
But if the original design in things was to be able to share genetic material through things like HGT and symbiosis then there isn't a need for evolution through random mutations which is the basis for darwinian evolution. Evolution through random mutations is creating new life and features from a chance process that has no direction and design. Tapping into pre existing genetic info and sharing it with all life to gain the ability to change suggests that the blue print for life was already there and created in the original life and then given the mechanisms to share that around so that all life could have access to this and grow out from that.[/QUOTE]
The skulls are merely evolution picking out the best natural variations between apes and humans and lining them up in a neat line.
The genetic evidence seems similar to the way the observational evidence is used by evolution. Picking out what it wants to show with the similarities between the creatures they want to use to make the tree of life. But they ignore the many contradictions that destroy this tree of life they make. Many unrelated creatures according to how evolution has built the tree show great similarities with their genetics as well. Many closely related creatures through anatomical similarities have different gene sequences as well.
So if there are 40 million mutation events how do you explain how they could be fixed in only 300,000 generations in that time. This is known as Haldane's dilemma.
They are not facts. I don’t go by speculation of trying to make jigsaw puzzle pieces fit together from a pre determined idea they already have. There is no prediction in picking out bits of creatures that may be similar and then say they must have come from each other. Especially when you choose to ignore all the bits that don’t fit the story that evolution tries to make. There’s always an escape clause when something comes up like convergence of unrelated creatures or fossils out of place. All creatures have some similarities because they share a similar environment.
"...Maillard reaction chamber..."
lol.
I like this one, but the toast it makes is a bit on the dark side...
Never left, just spend my time more in the philosophy forum.
I guess thats a reflection of the amount of research and time I put into the topics. I dont just rely on my own versions of things and give one or two sentence answers with my opinion only. The posts get longer and longer because some break down what I say into points and I respond to that one by one. I know I probably carry on but I feel that a detailed answer is needed to back up what is said.
This sounds like you're saying that a person is never supposed to make a decision, isn't that the way it works, to be open to a subject in the beginning until you reach a point where you come to a conclusion on it? Unless I'm taking your post wrong.
