Extraneous
Well-Known Member
No sir. I honestly believe that its far from being understood fully.
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.
They understand it quite well. They dedicate their entire lives to studying it. This is just you moving the goal posts because you don't want evolution to be true.
If your hypothesis is "God did it" please explain in detail how you can do repeatable experiments to show that your hypothesis is true. More importantly what test can I run in attempts to falsify your hypothesis? If your hypothesis is not falsifiable, you have to throw it out because it has no explanatory power and cannot make predictions about the natural world.
No sir. I honestly believe that its far from being understood fully.
Basically put: if you have no degree, then you cannot categorically say that evolution is wrong or that scientists have it wrong. It's an opinion only.
Just because scientists don't know something now, doesn't mean they won't know more in the future. And saying that God created everything is a religious opinion, which is not something backed by evidence.
Thats just the way God created bacteria. Its supposed to mutate like that.
I didnt say it was wrong, i only said that they are looking for a needle in a haystack, and they wont be finding it any time soon. Well, i know you think that evolution theory is conclusive, but i must remain skeptical.
You keep saying that, but have given nothing but your opinion. Actually give us evidence that scientists don't understand everything about evolution.
Lets say that God created this world, just for argument sake. Surely God created everything from the same source, so naturally everything would be related and share DNA.
I just didI never said that evolution is conclusive. I do accept that it is the single best theory that science has for how life created the various species of life on Earth, purely because no-one has given any single evidence to show that God or some other deity started this process, only claims.
And again: you keep making the claim that scientists don't know everything. Can you give any evidence to back up your claim?
I did but you didn't acknowledge it. They dont understand DNA fully, yet they use it as evidence, thats one example. Basically they are wanting me to believe that although they are far from understanding the mysteries of DNA, that they can still tell me what happened millions of years ago, by using that DNA, and watching some bacteria mutate, and by observing some inconclusive fossil evidence. Is there anything more than that? Because if there isnt i must remain skeptical for now.
I just did
They dont understand DNA fully, yet they use it as evidence, thats one example.
Is there anything more than that? Because if there isnt i must remain skeptical for now.
A software engineer is someone who engineers/designs software - any software. It's just a fancy title for "programmer".
A software engineer, furthermore, should not be confused with computer science either.
Off course GA's and neural networks are touched upon during classes. Every programmer who had a college or university education in ICT most likely was exposed to it in one way or the other.
But that doesn't mean that it was done in detail. It's quite a specialised branch, which is not covered in detail in a general ICT education, especially not when the focus is on enterprise-level development.
The life of a software engineer / programmer is a lifetime of study. A lot of college and university tracks will just give you a foundation on which you'll have to build yourself, depending on the job or industry you end up working in.
Typically, when it comes to for example such heavy math based optimisation methods, it won't even be the programmers that will design the required algorithms. They'll just implement it in code. They'll have to roughly understand what is going on in the algorithm. But understanding the algorithm and being able to design it from scratch are two very different things in that world.
I've worked on plenty of projects where none of us actually really understood what all the values/variables/formula's really represented. A functional analyst would write it all out, step by step, and we'ld just implement it like code monkeys. And when you'ld ask a programmer of that team "what are you working on?", he'ld just answer with "use case X". And when asked "what is X about?", the answer would be "i don't have a clue".
Building software can be funny that way.
This is to be expected. If we would have to learn and understand the actual business behind every project we'ld work on, we'ld have to start studying months for every new project. In a consultancy firm, where you work on another project every 5 months, this is simply not possible and a waste of resources.
Not that long ago, we did a project that was all about risk management. Huge amounts of data were fed into mathematical models that would analyse it and spew out results. We created a framework in wich that analysis took place but we didn't design that math model. None of us was strong enough in math to do so. Instead, 2 mathematicians were part of the business team and they were the ones that told us how to implement what. They designed the model. We merely translated it into code.
Its not fallacy, its just opinion. Those mutations you mention dont cause people to turn into Apes, just for example.
Except that they DO understand DNA. They've sequenced entire genomes!
It's you that doesn't understand it and it sounds like you don't want to understand it because you're afraid of the conclusions.
You haven't demonstrated any desire to learn. You just want to hand wave everything away and make claims that geneticists don't understand what they're looking at, when in actuality they do. Stop trying to move the goal posts. It's a dishonest fallacy.
Similar design equals same designer.Evolution isn't just about similarities, it's about the PATTERN of similiarities. Evolution forms branching lines of descent into a nested hierchy. Cars DON'T.
Similar design equals same designer.
What about this idea of Junk DNA? I thought that some DNA that was previously thought to be junk, but ended up having a purpose after all.
This is exactly like our creator. He exists outside the rules of our dimension. He created us based on the rules of our dimension but is not confined by them or limited by them.
Our world is created by intelligent design.
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?