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.
Who you talkin about? Get yer facts straight, bub!
Scientists used to say there was such a thing as zero gravity; now, they've amended that to say it is microgravity.Newton's theory of gravity made some pretty good predictions also. They got the job done up until advanced forms of transportation came along. Then they needed a new theory to keep up with the changing times. Einstein working in the Patient office saw this need.
Scientists used to say there was such a thing as zero gravity; now, they've amended that to say it is microgravity.
talking about people is gossiping. Talking to people is conversation. Just so you know.
Discussing people's posting style and the logical validity of their posts is an entirely reasonable thing to do in a thread such as this. It's hardly behind Astrid's back (as gossip would be), and she has the opportunity to address my points if she wants to.
And so, as new fossils and new organisms were found, they were placed in this nested hierarchy, and, lo and behold, everything fit, just as evolutionary biology predicted that it would.
Another atheist has a really scraggly beard (Intentional gossip)
gos·sip (gsp)
n.
1. Rumor or talk of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature.
2. A person who habitually spreads intimate or private rumors or facts.
3. Trivial, chatty talk or writing.
4. A close friend or companion.
5. Chiefly British A godparent.
intr.v. gos·siped, gos·sip·ing, gos·sips
To engage in or spread gossip.
I always used to hate shaving until I tried the Azor razor system.
talking about people is gossiping. Talking to people is conversation. Just so you know.
It is interesting that evolution explains the human species' addiction to gossip, but I've never heard a religious explanation.
Would that not be explained by the sin nature?
As I couldn't keep up with the threads here, I had to take a step back.
It's interesting to see how Astrid posts.
She quotes a lot of references. A lot of these don't support her arguments. E.g. she posts links showing that the phylogenetic tree has been modified over the years as more evidence has come in and better theories to explain evolution has come in. She tries to paint this quite normal procedure as indicating something "wrong" with evolution, but doesn't actually say what it is that is "wrong" or why we should be concerned if the phylogenetic tree is refined and improved over time.
She does bluster a bit. E.g. she posted the John Sanford link. I looked into it, found problems, found a sophisticated analysis of his work, read some more, and figured out what was wrong with it. When I posted my response, I received a blustering "get over it". But, Astrid didn't actually address my points concerning why Sanford's simulations were based on poor models of mutation and variation to the point where the predictions of his model mean nothing. But she hasn't addressed these issues. And personally I'm not convinced that she can. She posts a lot of scientific looking links, but I don't think she really understands the content of her links, and hence can't construct an argument based on them. She can only post, and bluster. I'd be happy to be proved wrong here, but that's all I'm seeing so far.
She's done some similar blustering with the Vitamin C example. The point was raised as to why humans have only the first few steps of vitamin C synthesis present, but the last step doesn't work. Why would a God make us work that way? But Astrid suddenly posts a link to a paper about mammals being able to synthesise or not synthesise Vitamin C, again with a blustering put-down. I looked at the paper and I can't see how it supports her argument.
It does look like Astrid is posting something that has the surface appearance of a scientific argument, but which lacks the underlying logic.
That's my analysis, anyhow.
Well I get blessings, so some here like what I have to say and what you think really does not matter.
The gene is still there in humans, it is just no longer functional.
If you actually read the lin I gave you then you wouldn't have mentioned epigenetics in your post - it is irrelevant to human's inability to synthesise ascorbic acid.
As I said, the existance of this pseudogene was predicted by evolutionary theory. That is what scientific theories do, they allow us to build a model of the world and make predictions from it.
Again, read the link.
Note it wasn't a random person's webpage - it was research done by scientists, experts in their field.
They have examined Y chromosomes and realised that they are far more succeptable to change than others, and they tell you why.
No hand waving required.
Get over yourself. You have refered to the research I present. Indeed you are responding to some in this post, finally.I do actually.
It is not a ghost it is a remnant from our past just sat there like a piece of junk in our genome.
Respond away, be my guest.
But you have scorned otheres for not including links to data, research and evidence - yet provide none yourself.
If you have no intention of looking when people do provide links, then we have nothing to talk about.
Besides, even if you do read them I know you won't be bothered, you'll just look for a creationist refutation of it and spoon feed us that instead.
Many dinosaurs had hollow bones, so they are not uniquely bird features - such as A. riocoloradensis - yet they have survived also.
i fail to see how your timeline suports creationism though, maybe you would like to explain that one.
Especially the bit about flying birds coming before dinosaurs because fish can fly - I'm afraid that made no sense, I must have mis-understood what you were trying to say. While you're at it, why don't you just describe your scenario to us, and include any evidence you think is pertianant. After all, if you are correct and I have been misled, I would much rather know the truth than blindly follow a conspiracy.
Actually, I don't think you have any answers.
Yeah, they are so alike its almost scary.
Just to note, if A. natans really is a seal it is hopelessly out of place.
The oldest seal-like finds have been around 10-12 millions years old, and are found around the pacific then southern hemisphere. Whale ancestors have been found around what was once the tethys sea and date to around 50 million years ago. I should also remind you that the genetic evidence suggests that modern day whales are most closely related to hippos, and so they shared a common ancestor which was a hooved land mammal.
Pinnipeds are closely related to bears, and hence are in the order Carnivora. You will notice that whales are not in this order, they are cetaceans.
So if a magic poof takes nearly 50 million years and requires numerous intermediate stages then wow, I believe in magic.
Especially Penn & Teller, those guys are great.
That's becasue you just make it all up as you go along.....
Which actually means that you don't care if you are actually right cos your mind is made up, any evidence that comes along to disprove you is either hand waving, magic or just plain lies.
At the end of the day human knowledge and understanding has flourished once we learned to look for new evidence and remodel our views to make sure they were correct, able to fit every piece of data around.
to say 'that's it, there is nothing new that will make me look wrong' is just silly.
Plus, the DNA is conclusive.
Evolution is a fact - get over it and enjoy your life.
- snip blather -
So can you it seems... doesn't help you much...You can say as many words as you like.
Nothing I offer nor any interpretation of the data I present could be worse than the 150 years or falsifications and instability you evos have to offer.
Who on earth do you think you are to make such allegations about me.
Let's see what you are on about.
What crap you go on with. Here you are with over 150 years of instability and falsification of what was once called evidence...down the dunny and you want to have a shot at Sanford.
In fact mutations generally bring about deleterious effects. Hence your evolutionary scientists support Sanford but they do not have the guts to say so.
Indeed Sanfords work is just as credible as any of the flavour of the months you can produce. Many scientists support his work and they know more than you.
Uncommon Descent | Respected Cornell geneticist rejects Darwinism in his recent book
Indeed this research below states that most clades showed a bias towards DECREASING complexity just as Sanford stated.
The point you missed is that your researchers actually see nothing. That is the fact. What they see is what an algorithm spits out.
Don't forget these boofheads of yours thought non coding DNA was junk. That was until it was found to be functional.
Some scientists have suggested that loss of the vitamin C biosynthesis pathway may have played a role in the theory of rapid evolutionary changes, leading to hominids and the emergence of human beings
Who on earth do you think you are to make such allegations about me.
Hey, Astrid!
Looks to me like you have picked yourself up a critic or two!
Good going!
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?