- May 22, 2015
- 7,379
- 2,640
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
Really? In another thread I didn't see? Because there was no link in this post that I was quoting:
Upvote
0
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.
Really? In another thread I didn't see? Because there was no link in this post that I was quoting:Yeah I gave the link
On a question and answer forum called Biology Online one poster said <snip>
I'm just describing those who believe in evolution. I am not a creationists or have ever known of this word to be attached to the creationists movement. As the dictionary state s an evolutionists is someone who believes in evolution.No, steve, that's not accurate. The designation "evolutionist" is a creationist ploy meant to foster the impression that a controversy exists within the scientific community, with creationists on one side and evolutionists on the other. No such controversy exists. Only a tiny minority of scientists (and an even smaller minority of biologists) denies the reality of evolution.
Really? In another thread I didn't see? Because there was no link in this post that I was quoting:
No actually, I'm not. That's the whole idea behind probabilities. Give enough chances and eventually the highly improbable will happen. String together enough keystrokes randomly, and eventually you'll see a pattern, such as one of Shakespeare's sonnets.But when you said "Put enough monkeys in a room with typewriters, and give them enough time, and eventually they'll produce Shakespeare" you were joking right? I mean no one actually believes that would happen....!!!!
Yes there are some who say that the theory needs a rethink. There are a lot of new data that is causing some to doubt the traditional methods.It's certainly true that the theory is under constant revision in its details, and that explicitly Darwinian evolution is no longer center stage. Darwin had no information on the mechanisms of heredity, so, understandably, the details of his theory were rather speculative - but the principle on which it is based (reproduction with heritable variation and natural selection) is not in dispute. The corrections, refinements, and additions to Darwin's ideas are now known as the 'modern evolutionary synthesis'.
This is questionable according to some research.Not so. A number of mechanisms are known by which this can occur; for instance, gene duplication and subsequent mutation is a particularly fecund source of new functionality
Not according to these.People who say such things are ill-informed.
So I guess the papers Ive posted by experts dont know what they are talking about only because they happen to question the general consensus.Not by people who know what they're talking about.
So the ones that disagree with what you believe are saying silly things and the ones who support you are OK.Even scientists can say silly things. It's just the argument from incredulity.
I'm just describing those who believe in evolution. I am not a creationists or have ever known of this word to be attached to the creationists movement. As the dictionary state s an evolutionists is someone who believes in evolution.
noun
1.
a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology.
2.
a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.
So you keep claiming. Forgive me for not taking this claim seriously, given your history of misinterpreting the relevant literature.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist
As far as I have read many scientists have some doubts about aspects of evolution. Thats why there is so much debate in the fields. You have to clarify what you mean by evolution because this is what confuses people. There are different understandings of what evolution represents. Evolutionists and thats those who believe in the Darwinian theory interpret evolution differently to those who believe in the more modern understanding of neo Darwinian theory. Then there are those who believe in theistic evolution as well.
From what I have been reading there are many varied beliefs about evolution even with those who say there is no God or creation. Each can have some different core beliefs which can bring into question the fundamental beliefs of Darwinian evolution 4without supporting creation or ID. Though some of the things they support are more in line with ID than evolution from mutations and natural selection. In fact more and more scientists are coming out with variations of the evolution theory and are moving closer to beliefs along ID all the time such as creatures having their genetic info from a very early time in history such as front loaded evolution.
Examples of some of the more popular ones are Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo), Front-loaded Evolution, Somatic Selection, Epigenetic Evolution and Evolution by Symbiogenesis.
However, what is heavily disputed and debated is the amount of evolution that is possible with each theory. One theory may be very well proven for certain kinds of changes, but not proven at all for others. It is good for someone pursuing research to take an idea and see how far it will go. However, it is good for the rest of us to critically examine the results and decide for ourselves how well-founded those ideas are, and to what extent they apply.
https://www.classicalconversations....d-many-theories-evolution-and-why-they-matter
You missed the obvious.Darwin himself admitted “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“ (Origin of Species, Chpt. 6 Difficulties of the Theory) and since this we have noted many species suddenly appearing in the geo-column fully formed with all their functional subsystems in place with no predecessors from which they could have formed via slow mutations. Therefore his theory has been broken down by reality. Now that’s not to say that some speciation (the production of variety) has not occurred, but just Triops Cancriformos and Nautilus clearly have not changed in billions of years and even Gould and the Punctuated Equilibrium crowd admit the sudden appearances of new forms with no apparent predecessors.
The DNA between us and Apes is very close, between us and Chimps even closer.Hey I have a question? Are ancient ape genes recessive in humans?
Which is answered by this:...and since this we have noted many species suddenly appearing in the geo-column fully formed with all their functional subsystems in place...
But you assume this:A missing link, is just missing. You're suggesting it doesn't exist.
...with no predecessors from which they could have formed via slow mutations.
Yes Jacob was a farmer and he would of understood how crossing the best produced a better strain.Pictures are always good tools for propaganda imprinting but we have long understood how new variety is produced (Jacob even knew about doing this) long before Darwin came along. But interestingly new science (see the work of Robert Wayne for example) is showing that the grey wolf is NOT the ancient ancestor after all...but even creationists would agree that all the variety originated from the earliest dog couples (which would have contained all the genetic potentiality)....same with varieties of humans...(there are no "races" just variety)
He's arguing about something he shouldn't even agree exists.You see this:
Which is answered by this:
But you assume this:
No actually, I'm not. That's the whole idea behind probabilities. Give enough chances and eventually the highly improbable will happen. String together enough keystrokes randomly, and eventually you'll see a pattern, such as one of Shakespeare's sonnets.
Notice I didn't say how many monkeys it would take, nor did I say how long it would take. Just that there is a time when that would happen eventually. Highly improbable does not equal impossible. And given more chances increases probability.
Yes Jacob was a farmer and he would of understood how crossing the best produced a better strain.
Go back and read the research. http://lifesciences.ucla.edu/docs/Unique Evolution.pdf
Did you know about the Dire Wolf, larger than the Grey Wolf and went extinct with the other Mega Fauna large animals. Like the Giant Sloth, Glyptodon, Argentavis, Paraceratherium, Megalodon, Daeodon, Giant beaver. http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/blogs/7-extinct-megafauna-that-are-out-of-this-world
He's arguing about something he shouldn't even agree exists.
As a retired person I can watch all the documentaries on Archaeology, Paleontology, Evolution and Wildlife. I can see Homo Sapiens are by no means unique in the Hominid family, that we met and mated with Neanderthals, Homo Erectus left Africa before Homo Sapiens. The different creatures we shared the Earth with that went extinct, the ones who came before us, and the 100,000s of years we hunted and gathered wild fruits. Before we settled down to farm. Where the bible kicks off.
The most important is that the "many species suddenly appearing" bear so many similarities to other species and to us. There has to be a chain of evolution. Look at the hands of the many species suddenly appearing, and see where they're similar to ours. Even animals that came long before us and were long gone before we arrived. A god doesn't need those similarities, evolution has to have them.
No they were varieties of the Hominid family, as are humans.Neanderthals were just a variety of human (albeit an unsuccessful variety)...as were many labelled Erectus (others are Apes and franhkenstein hodge podges of mixed remains like when Dubois took the ape skull cap and pieced it together with a human femur hiding the two human skulls he had found at the same site and called his hodge podge an Ape-man)....
Yes a God would have used the same more successful designs, don't be ridiculous, RANDOMICITY would have produced the most variance
Yes there is reams of evidence of the slow mutations. Real bones showing slight variations they can date. Like some dinosaurs evolving into birds. We never had a clue this happened. Then as more dinosaur bones were found, the similarities with birds were seen, now we see fossils with feathers, dinosaur bones evolving to become more like the bone structure of birds. And the theory is turned into fact.But you assume this:
↑
...with no predecessors from which they could have formed via slow mutations.
Really? Show me please?
Yup!!!
You see? You're still confusing abiogenesis with evolution. The monkeys are an answer to how abiogenesis happens. Countless molecules crashing together throughout the universe eventually smashed together something that, given a bit of juice, became "alive". That's when evolution takes over. They are not the same thing, and I think that you are intentionally misleading the argument by trying to say that they are. Albeit we have a lot less information about abiogenesis than evolution, and it may seem like knocking it down would say something about evolution, but it doesn't.Indeed we agree on this....and don't forget to include all the DNA/Cell symbiosis of all cells in all living things ever (since we were talking of only one miniscule accomplishment)...so don't forget that not only would this have had to have happened not only these many millions of times but that Hamlet would also have had to do so in symbiosis with a functional subsystem of transcription/translation so once it permanently ceased from doing this (which it had to do millions of years ago) they would replicate and multiply into the billions times billions of these systems we see now
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?