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.
What "Engineered limits"?
There are limits and tolerances for those processes that won't gradually transition from one type of process into a new type of process with a different outcome.
All biological and chemical processes.
So you've said. Now what exactly are these "limits and tolerances" and what is your proof that they restrict evolution?
All engineering and chemical processes have limits and tolerances.
This has no restriction or influence in any way on your imagination.
Can I just say that I don't understand what you wrote? In what sense does evolution "burn off the end" of DNA?Each kind of animal has enough information programed into it to evolve (change) into an altered version that will survive in a deteriorating world. It may even cross the holy "SPECIES" bar that man has invented.
You can't burn off the end of a lever, have it evolve into a cam, and then into a wheel. There are functional limits to DNA evolution with the same constraints .....it won't work half-ashed.
Bearing in mind that there are a number of biologists/biology students (myself included) frequenting this board, can you provide any evidence for that claim?We call that inherent variation in a population.
And it's all there at the start, and it degrades over time.
Wait. Are you arguing that because nothing else works like living things, living things can't work like that either?Your "the tiny bits add up" has NO parallel in the known world. Nothing follows the model you propose. Not atomic structure, not chemical processes, not the orbit of the stars, nothing in engineering, ....nothing in the real world follows the model you propose as the foundation of all life.
Except evolution, including evolutionary novelty, is an observed reality. For a really cool example, feel free to familiarise with the long-term evolution experiment still ongoing in the Lenski lab. These guys have been watching their bacteria evolve for over 20 years. That means they have been observing many descendant lineages from a common ancestor for about 50 000 generations now. In that time, they have observed adaptation, novelty and a whole bunch of other interesting things.So it's a foundational model without a foundation to back it up.
Aside from the minor problem that you have provided no specifics, why would that mean that gradual events are not important? I'm not following your reasoning.Actually it was based on a false model of geological gradualism popular at the time. If it weren't for non-gradual factors in geology, we'd only have firewood to heat our homes at night.
Sure, but in the case of the evolution whales we seem to have a whole lot of little steps in evidence from cow type thing to sorta hippo to pudgy mamalian sea crocodile to the diverse set of sea bound leviathans we see today.All engineering and chemical processes have limits and tolerances.
This has no restriction or influence in any way on your imagination.
Ok.... Now cite a source that supports your claim that something like Australiopithecus couldn't evolve into humanity.
I can't fight your imagination. I can simply say that you
don't have any tools to accomplish the creation of life.
Nor any scientific laws or principals to even suggest it.
Nor any engineering methods to accomplish the task.
Nor any models in the Cosmos to parallel it.
Gradualism is a dead science.
Take note, this poster is opperating over the assumption that if we are wrong, he must be right.I can't fight your imagination. I can simply say that you
don't have any tools to accomplish the creation of life.
Nor any scientific laws or principals to even suggest it.
Nor any engineering methods to accomplish the task.
Nor any models in the Cosmos to parallel it.
Gradualism is a dead science.
Sure, but in the case of the evolution whales we seem to have a whole lot of little steps in evidence from cow type thing to sorta hippo to pudgy mamalian sea crocodile to the diverse set of sea bound leviathans we see today.
You can say there's a limit to evolution, but you need to demonstrate that something about evolutionary theory somehow breaks it, not just assert that it has.
What we SEEM to have is a lack of information. The "tree" of life started out as a tree with a trunk & branches. It is currently much closer to it final form, a stand of reeds in a swamp with no branching top to bottom.
I fully support all scientific research, because while all the foam rises to the top and the girls squeal about whale legs,
the lab coats very quietly, bit by bit cut off each branch and plant it back into the soil back where it belongs. In the end, no branching will be left.
Your cow, hippo things either were there and died out, or they lived right alongside of the thing they were supposed to have evolved from or into.
It eventually happens in EVERY case and the lab coats have to keep finding new branches to keep the team spirit alive. But eventually they quietly plant the branch back in the dirt.
This search will show the old tree - "Cuvier, Huxley, Wallace, Morgan,"
and this search the newer one - " the above diagram showing the Evolution of Life."
Even as supporters cheer each other on, they undercut the theory by pulling down the branches.
You should note that the only branches left are the larger fossils that are exponentially more rare.
Another reason to focus all attention on a whale.
Hey everyone...look over here at this whale
Take note, this poster is operating over the assumption that if we are wrong, he must be right.
This search will show the old tree > "Cuvier, Huxley, Wallace, Morgan,"Of course you have no proof of this.
The physical evidence indicates otherwise.
Citation please.
This search will show the old tree > "Cuvier, Huxley, Wallace, Morgan,"
and this search the newer one > " the above diagram showing the Evolution of Life."
(With all the braches ripped off and stuck back in the dirt.
Not just one, but a HANDFULL of evolution trees with most
of the branching ripped off and stuck back in the dirt.)
No, I don't want a diagram, I want you to prove that Evolution doesn't happen do to magical limitations of DNA, remember?
Science is proving my point for me. Each time a branch comes down
it is PROVING that a type of organism is UNABLE to mutate into another
kind, or species, or family. What ever name you'd like to use.
A Branch is a mutation or evolution direction that succeeded in creating something new. The slow steady removal of branches is proof positive in actual results that barriers exist. Not theory....actual fossil documentation.
In all honesty.......the barriers could be environmental or maybe artificial. Maybe the species is watched over by space aliens and mutants are killed with ray guns from space. All I know is that the branches are coming down over time. This fits my predictions to a T.
Science is proving my point for me. Each time a branch comes down
it is PROVING that a type of organism is UNABLE to mutate into another
kind, or species, or family. What ever name you'd like to use.
Branch is a mutation or evolution direction that succeeded in creating something new. The slow steady removal of branches is proof positive in actual results that barriers exist.
Not theory....actual fossil documentation.
In all honesty.......the barriers could be environmental or maybe artificial.
Maybe the species is watched over by space aliens and mutants are killed with ray guns from space. All I know is that the branches are coming down over time. This fits my predictions to a T.
Use your eyes and SEE for yourself what science has done to Darwins precious tree of life.
(With all the braches ripped off and stuck back in the dirt.
Not just one, but a HANDFULL of evolution trees with most
of the branching ripped off and stuck back in the dirt.)
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?