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.
So, you're saying the crocoduck theory is good?That's not necessarily 60 changes- in chickens if the gene shh is activated they will grow teeth, if inactivated, no teeth. Indeed, there are even dinosarus with no teeth such as the ornithomimosaurs. Lungs within theropod dinosaurs and birds are remarkably similar structures, making use of air sacs distributed through the bones. I have not ventured to compute how many changes are needed between birds and dinosaurs. Would going through the genome and just counting each base pair difference suffice? If so there is a remarkable continuity between animals already, with relatively minor differences in the genome producing pronounced effects in phenotype. You're also working with an entire population of mutation generating sexed up dinosaurs, not just one family line.
So, you're saying the crocoduck theory is good?
In Christ, GB
With that logic, one could squeeze a platypus between a beaver and a duck.Take two panels one black one white, separate them by a thousand panels making the change from black to white,
now point out the two panels where black changes to white, you can't because although you know that each box is different from the panel before it you are unable to see the difference.
We can look at all the panels together and see the change did in fact take place but we are unable to see where the change took place, that's the same as evolution at work.
With that logic, one could squeeze a platypus between a beaver and a duck.
In Christ, GB
I am just saying that the claim has been made by evolutionists that we have this common ancestry exists and that all these transition forms supposedly existed, but they cannot be found in any layer anywhere, therefore we should throw Genesis out the window because it can't be accepted on faith, but evolutionary theory can be.What Good Brother is trying to say with his numbers is this:
"I refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution---including the more foundational evidence which doesn't need a single fossil to exist---unless you can show me that the planet earth has SO MANY FOSSILS such that I look out my window and see nothing but fossil remains all of the way to the horizon! To accept evolution you must show me the fossil remains for every animal that ever lived! I should have to have to bulldoze and backhoe a thirty foot thick fossil layer from my backyard before I can plant a garden!"
(And lest I be misunderstood, the above is not hyperbole. Indeed, depending on what "level" of transitional forms he demands, the depth of the fossil layer would be much deeper. If he expects to find a COMPLETE and continuous lineage, an enormous "tree" of fossils would have to remain from ancient times.)
"Even if such a layer existed...." Are you saying there isn't proof for your belief? Evolutionists are the ones claiming all the transition forms, and yet there aren't any anywhere. Hey everyone, I'm Gingus Kahn! I have no proof, but then you shouldn't expect any.But even if such a layer existed, he would somehow explain it all away using a global flood theory! (I'm serious.)
I guess I was under the impression that a true scientist wanted proof and evidence for a theory, not just assumptions and blind faith.But like so many non-scientists, he assumes..
Why do you accept one book written by a pastor* as scientific, but you don't trust God's word the same way?that Darwin's ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES placed The Theory of Evolution on a foundation of paleontology.
You know, that a crocodile laid and egg and a duckling hatched.What's the crocoduck theory? I've always thought that was a great common name for Archaeopteryx lithographica.
You know, that a crocodile laid and egg and a duckling hatched.
By the way, how exactly are cows and whales related again?Yup, hence why it's important to understand which traits are important for phylogeny and which are not.
You were the one who seemed to be pointing out that not that many changes were needed.Yeah, obviously that's exactly what evolution predicts.
That's not necessarily 60 changes- in chickens if the gene shh is activated they will grow teeth, if inactivated, no teeth. Indeed, there are even dinosarus with no teeth such as the ornithomimosaurs. Lungs within theropod dinosaurs and birds are remarkably similar structures, making use of air sacs distributed through the bones. I have not ventured to compute how many changes are needed between birds and dinosaurs. Would going through the genome and just counting each base pair difference suffice? If so there is a remarkable continuity between animals already, with relatively minor differences in the genome producing pronounced effects in phenotype. You're also working with an entire population of mutation generating sexed up dinosaurs, not just one family line.
With that logic, one could squeeze a platypus between a beaver and a duck.
By the way, how exactly are cows and whales related again?
GB
What you refuse to accept is that the evidence for micro evolution does not translate into evidence for macro evolution, no matter how much evos hope and wish that it would."I refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution--
Umm, I think the word your looking for here is "JUNK" According to Science 98% of DNA is junk and serves no purpose. Creationists tend to believe that God don't make no junk and that everything has a reason & a purpose. Of course science is slowly staring to come around, because you hear a little whisper here and there that MAYBE it ain't junk afterall.uhhh.... genetically? You know... their DNA. Oh, I forgot, DNA must be a fraud too.
Umm, I think the word your looking for here is "JUNK" According to Science 98% of DNA is junk and serves no purpose. Creationists tend to believe that God don't make no junk and that everything has a reason & a purpose. Of course science is slowly staring to come around, because you hear a little whisper here and there that MAYBE it ain't junk afterall.
Harmful mutations is not the question here. What is the question is so called beneficial mutations. Meaning a mutation that actually results in new information. Not just a frame shift which is information that was there all along.Nope... that's not what I was looking for. Besides, you can always blame non-functional DNA on "The Fall," and "The Curse."
It is apparent you did not read JanetReed's post. I was following HER logic illustrated in HER post.No you couldn't. And you just demonstrated how you don't understand the logic at all. Indeed, you appear to have limited understanding of the theory of evolution in general.
I believe I nailed it as your post was nothing more than an appeal to the emotions than to the facts at hand.And by the way, you also need to check on the definitions of "ad hominem" fallacy
You said, and I quote:and the No True Scotsman.
In other words, no true scientist would reject evolution, thus the "no true Scotsman".Indeed, it is very difficult to find a scientist who rejects evolution who does so without having religious reasons for doing so.
But you start with a finch and you end up with a finch. All you have is micro evolution and no macro evolution has taken place.
If you have evidence for macro evolution than by all means present your evidence. If you do not have evidence then do not make wild claims based on evidence that you do not have.
Care to expand? If you are saying they both have DNA, thus they are both related, I could go for that. However, if you are saying their DNA is similar, I'm gonna have to require a scosche more evidence than a condescending sentence in passing.uhhh.... genetically? You know... their DNA. Oh, I forgot, DNA must be a fraud too.
Funny thing is, it is saturated with fossils. We can go pretty much anywhere in the world and dig and find some fossils of some sort.
That is a ridiculous argument. If that were the case, you should share that secret with Hollywood. They could take a stationary picture instead of spending tens of millions of dollars to make a movie, and just have the people stare at the single stationary picture!
You say it won't be a dog or a cat, but it could be a dinoROAR!!...Ahem, I mean a dinosaur. It couldn't be a dog or a cat, but it might be an 80 feet long 5 ton monster with massive teeth and terrible sharp claws. It won't meow, but it might roar and chase after other exbirds.See, this is where you are wrong. You start with a finch... and where you will end, you cannot say. Your descendants may... and even they would not see the end of it. It won't be a cat, it won't be a dog, it won't be a spider. It will be something descended from a finch.
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?