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.
why? you cant make a prediction about your theory? its just prove my claim- evolution isnt a scientific theory.
There are cases of convergent gene evolution. Apo(a) is an example of the "same" gene evolving separately: Convergent evolution of apolipoprotein(a) in primates and hedgehog. That said, the sequences and path of evolution are clearly not identical.
That paper references a few other examples of convergent gene evolution.
Indeed. I'm aware that there are plenty of examples of analogous genes and genes that function similarly in different beings, but I'm not aware of any that are completely homologous, for example gene pathways for cetacean flippers and bat wings being exactly the same.
so your theory doesnt make any predictions?
Have you never heard the saying "we live and learn"? remember the old radios and TV's they were huge? today we have smart sleek radio's and TV's that do exactl the same thing as the old ones only much better, the basics of the radio and TV didn't change just the application, instead of valves we now use transistors and micro chips but Radio and TV were never proven to be wrong, thankfully things change as our knowledge increases and we learn more if we hadn't we would all be dead by now from influenza.
so your theory doesnt make any predictions?
why not? here is one:Still dancing I see. That tells me you don't have an example and were lying when you claimed you could provide one.
I'm not surprised.
I was going to note that ironically applies to Creationism, but Creationism isn't even a theory. As far as evolution goes it's never been "proven wrong" (I think you mean falsified.)
No matter what evidence is found, it will either be discarded or some story will be made up to incorporate it into the theory. That includes precambrian rabbits or humans in the Jurassic period. Or living T-Rex's.
Soft tissue. Impossible over millions of years.
The 'simple' cell. About as simple as a space shuttle or an automated city.
DNA. No information system just happens. It takes applied intelligence.
Proteins. In nature, the ratio of L to R hand is about 50:50. In living creatures, they are 100% left handed.
Mutations are incapable of causing evolution. They do not stack, and having too many cause death of sterility.
Abiogenesis.
Nothing short of gene splicing can make organisms pass the boundaries inherent in their kind.
Falsification. No matter what evidence is found, it will either be discarded or some story will be made up to incorporate it into the theory. That includes precambrian rabbits or humans in the Jurassic period. Or living T-Rex's.
why not? here is one:
Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News
evolution predict this order: a fish--> a missing link (fishpod)--> a tetrapod. instead we find a fish--> a tetrapod-->a missing link. the wrong order.
so again we see why evolution cant make any prediction.
A living T-Rex walking down the streets of Bozeman, Montana today would be less problematic for evolution than a single T-Rex tooth in Jurassic strata.
If something is found to be wrong with a particular science who works to correct that problem? scientists.
No, dogma is refusing to drop a theory when it is proven wrong
Instead, they add pixie dust to make the facts and theory seem to still agree.
Throwing out data that does not match the paradigm is another way to prevent progress, and it happens all the time in archeology.
https://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/the_dogma_of_darwinian_evoluti/
No. Space-time, as we currently know it, had a beginning. Space-time isn't the same as "nature".if he eternal he dont need a designer. simple. in the other hand: we know that nature have a beginning.
Right now, they have reached a limit as to how fast you can push electricity through a circuit and how small you can make switches with current technology.
What do they have that evolution doesn't? Intelligent people working toward a goal; faster, smaller computers.
As for the flu, you're better off with the advances in nutrition and vitamins than anything in medicine.
Nope. We've discovered we were wrong and that heme in the blood will preserve collagen. Do try and keep up.
Prokaryotic cells aren't that complicated.
The so-called chirality problem exists in the minds of Creationists only.
A falsehood you've been corrected on enough times to warrant my calling this a fib.
Same here. You've been told repeatedly that origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.
You've never defined "kind" so this claim is meaningless. As far as basal organisms evolving characteristics very different from the basal form, that has been observed in the fossil and genetic record.
A falsehood you've been corrected on previously. As far as the part in bold, it's a great example of how Creationists simply do not understand evolution. There's nothing in evolutionary theory that demands that a lineage go extinct. So-called Lazarus taxa are not a problem for evolution, but Creationists don't understand that because they don't understand how evolution works. A living T-Rex walking down the streets of Bozeman, Montana today would be less problematic for evolution than a single T-Rex tooth in Jurassic strata.
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?