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.
They published a paper just a few months ago. And from the looks of it, beneficial mutations are still occurring at what appears to be a steady rate. I will read through it and will get back to you on it.
If you have a new paper I would love to read it.
Thanks!
So they reversed again back to 2009 position? I would love to see the details in the paper and see how they archive this observation, i.e. what kind of different mutations that they deem benifitial are fixating in the strains. Do you have a link to the full paper?
So they reversed again back to 2009 position? I would love to see the details in the paper and see how they archive this observation, i.e. what kind of different mutations that they deem benifitial are fixating in the strains. Do you have a link to the full paper?
I think we are starting to discuss the same thing in 2 different thread now, will switch to the other post Can an old earth be proven? since you posted more interest stuff even though this thread is more on topicThe full paper is not free. So, I cannot post the whole thing here. But I can quote it.
Is there are proof of either?
Is there are proof of either?
You can repeatly test and verify theory of gravity. You can only do that to a tiny portion of TOEGravity is a theory, too.
You can repeatly test and verify theory of gravity. You can only do that to a tiny portion of TOE
False. But then, so is Noah's flood.Is there are proof of either?
I think ToE is strictly a theory. One of the things going against it are living fossils, a term Darwin invented.
"When Charles Darwin invented the term 'living fossils' in 1859, he was thinking of living species that look just like their ancestors of millions of years ago. His explanation was they occupied small parts of the world, escaping competition, and therefore did not change."
However, we find that there are MANY living fossils found in wider parts of the world, throughout the strata and goes back millions of years without changing much. Some of these are crocodiles, coelacanth, horseshoe crab, Wollemi pine, shark, wasp, mollusk, dragonfly, sycamore, gingko biloba, cancer and more. They remain similar if not exactly alike. It goes against evolution's theory of change over time and the tree of life. I can accept a few like Darwin thought, but not ones that faced the same changes as other creatures' fossils found at the same level.
Some other factors are going on. We find that older evolutionary theories such as Lemarck's straight-line evolution and Mendel genetic theory are coming back with epigenetic inheritance and genetic engineering. These are more rapid forms of mutation or change as opposed to claims of slow evolutionary change for the living fossils due to less competition.
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-weight-darwin-theory-fossils.html#jCp
Aligators of today are not the same as back then, nor are sharks or any other example you've provided.
Have you ever seen a megalodon swimming around? Aligators we're 2-3 times larger back then as well. Morphologically they we're independent species than those that live today.
Living fossil do resemble their ancestors, however they are still morphologically different and unique from those ancestors.
Horseshoe crabs look a lot like trilobites as well, but they're morphologically different.
Dragon flys as well had wing spans up to 3-4 feet as well in the past.
Proof of either what?
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that existing life forms have evolved from ancestral life forms and share common ancestry. There is also a large body of theory that explains how and why evolution has occurred.
Facts don't become laws in science. A "law" in science is a simple empirical relationship between observable phenomena or measurements. It's also a term that is almost never applied in contemporary science.Explain when evolution became a law?
A "theory" in science just mean an explanation for phenomena, often a large explanatory framework that encompasses a range of data. Theories don't become laws, and scientists almost rarely talk about "proving" theories. Instead, the measure of a scientific theory is how well it is supported by evidence -- what data it has explained and predicted. By that measure, evolution (specifically, common descent) is such a well-supported theory that we can routinely treat it as true -- which is what a fact is. The ideas that germs cause disease, that matter is made of atoms and that the earth orbits the sun are all theories. They're also facts.Because the last time I picked up a science book, there was no proof that it stopped being a scientific theory.
There is an abundance of evidence that we share a common ancestor with monkeys. I've written up a little bit of it here.And Im still waiting to see proof of how humans came from monkeys.
Greetings brother! You are correct, The "T" in ToE is there for a reason. There's a number of fundamental difficulties with evolution. These are some older videos where some of the more notable challenges and logical fallacies are discussed:Explain when evolution became a law? Because the last time I picked up a science book, there was no proof that it stopped being a scientific theory. And Im still waiting to see proof of how humans came from monkeys.
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?