You know what? I should just stop posting arguments against creationism and use that picture.
Upvote
0
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.
You know what? I should just stop posting arguments against creationism and use that picture.True but the fact that mutations occur in all life forms then they (life forms) are in a state of transition.
Extinction of a species does in no way means it was not transitional. So long as mutations occur then suffice it to say that all life is in a transitional state. Given time and the ability to survive a changing environment then any species will transition.
ToE would not be possible were this not to be true.
This means that all fossils are transitional too.
True but the fact that mutations occur in all life forms then they (life forms) are in a state of transition
I can prove evolu tion isnot true. The offspring cannot acquire a trait for which one or both parents did not have the gene for.
If you have evidence that evoluiton is true, then write it down, get it peer reviewed and collect your Nobel prize.
Mutation do not put one in a state of transition. Mutations do not add trait, they alter a trait the kid would have gotten without the mutation. Mutations are not a mechanism for evolution. Post one exampel of a mutation being the cause for an A to evolve into a B.
Point takenSorry for not being more clear. I was specifically referring to this part:
And showed that that assertion isn't correct with the example of Taung Child. I wasn't referring to species and my point was that one needs to be clear one is referring to populations (Au. africanus for example) instead of individual fossils (Taung for example).
Fix your post else one may think it is you who is anti evolution.If you have evidence that evoluiton is true, then write it down, get it peer reviewed and collect your Nobel prize.
I can prove evolu tion isnot true. The offspring cannot acquire a trait for which one or both parents did not have the gene for. I can also prove "after it kind" a scientific truth. You can't prove anything the TOE preaches.
Also you little tag at the end of you opinions is silly. Ask any question you want to and you will receive many answers from teh Christians in the fourm.
Congratulations on your proof that evolution is not true, whatever that may be. Have they knocked on your door with the nobel prize yet?
Baby girls are born with all the eggs they will ever possess in their lifetime. Tween testes begin sperm production in that approximate timeframe.
Since characteristics (phenotype) are expressions of genes (genotype) changes in the latter will axiomatically result in changes to the former. Some of those will be novel changes.
You know what? I should just stop posting arguments against creationism and use that picture.
Explain where nylon eating bacteria got their genes from.
Already done (not by me, alas) several times over: in 1910, 1933, 1946, 1958, 1959, 1962*, 1968, 1969, 1983*, 1989*, 1993*, 2006*, 2007, 2009, and 2012. The years with asterisks indicate research that had the most direct impact on the theory of evolution. The other years are more genetics in general, though there was an effect on evolution studies.
If you have evidence that evoluiton is true, then write it down, get it peer reviewed and collect your Nobel prize.
Congratulations on your proof that evolution is not true, whatever that may be. Have they knocked on your door with the nobel prize yet?
From their parents of course.
BTW way were they still bacteria?
evolution. You do understand that evolution preaches one species evolving into a different species, right?
I can prove evolution is not true. The offspring cannot acquire a trait for which one or both parents did not have the gene for.
Wrong yet again. Here is an example from the thread archive of herbicide resistance due to a specific mutation, not present earlier in the population.I can prove evolution is not true. The offspring cannot acquire a trait for which one or both parents did not have the gene for. I can also prove "after it kind" a scientific truth. You can't prove anything the TOE preaches.
Maybe you should be "emparassed" by your awful spelling. Or maybe by the fact that you are admitting how narrow-minded you are.Don't avoid my answer. Tell me why it is wrong or run away. Either way you will be emparassed.
No one has denied your ability to assert that mutations are not a mechanism for evolution. But asserting something repeatedly does not make it so. We have given you many examples of how mutations are, in fact, a mechanism for evolution, and your response has essentially been, "no, they aren't." You have given no evidence to back up your assertion and we have given plenty. So even if you don't believe the evidence, why should anyone believe your argument?They won't be changes. They will be aterations of what the person would have gotten without the mutation. It really doesn't matter, mutations are not a mechanism for evolution.
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?