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.
I do not believe in the random mutation theory. A lot of the theory has nothing to do with mutations, the information was there from the beginning. For example I do not consider frame shift to be a mutation but it is included in the mutation theory.
I ignore nonsense if that is what your referring to.Judging by your responses, you clearly ignore what suits you.
How could you not consider a frame shift a mutation? It's describing a specific type of change to DNA as a result of copying errors that occur during replication, which is by definition what a mutation is.
Or is this just a case of rewriting the dictionary again?
-_- frame shifts are the consequence of mutations that add or remove one or more bases from the DNA. They do not occur without mutation.I do not believe in the random mutation theory. A lot of the theory has nothing to do with mutations, the information was there from the beginning. For example I do not consider frame shift to be a mutation but it is included in the mutation theory.
This is an example of a population bottleneck, I suppose, but I have no idea what you are talking about, because the hamsters I see in pet stores are of a variety of colors.A good example are the hamsters you buy in the pet stores. Because of inbreeding they tend to all be the same color but in the wild they were many different colors like most all species.
a motion systems exist in nature too, you know.
Similarities are not evidence of evolution. Embyology is not evidence and the fossil record is the worst evidence as all fossils are fully formed and appear in large amounts. DNA is not evidence because similarity is not evidence. It is evidence of common design.
I do not believe in the random mutation theory. A lot of the theory has nothing to do with mutations, the information was there from the beginning. For example I do not consider frame shift to be a mutation but it is included in the mutation theory.
A good example are the hamsters you buy in the pet stores. Because of inbreeding they tend to all be the same color but in the wild they were many different colors like most all species.
Perhaps you should read the article on evolution as a fact and a theory.Err.... mutations are not a "'theory".
Drawing conclusion from those so called mutations is called a theory. Stephen Jay Gould described fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts.Newborn humans have 50 of them on average.
There are 26 species of wild hamster that run free in parts of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. The ones we see in the pet store are Syrian hamsters. They like to draw conclusions using the Syrian hamster without taking the other 26 species of hamsters into consideration.I have no idea what you are talking about, because the hamsters I see in pet stores are of a variety of colors.
Just bring a species in from outside of the group. A lot of problems will not be expressed if only the mother or the father carries it. My wife comes from the other side of the world. I could not have gone any further to find a wife. But our son is very healthy.it takes many generations for a bottlenecked population to regain the genetic diversity it had prior to the bottleneck event.
Yah I know. They don’t classify us as they do the rest of the animal kingdom (except dogs), even if we are supposed to be just evolved animals.
Perhaps you should read the article on evolution as a fact and a theory.
Drawing conclusion from those so called mutations is called a theory. Stephen Jay Gould described fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts.
In my experiences, creationists tend to ignore or just deny the vast majority of facts.Creationism and Evolution has all the same facts.
They just have different theories to explain those facts.
And then you're still adding undetectable parameters to the process that make no difference at all. And the only reason you do so, is just to be able to marry it with your preconceived religious beliefs.I consider theistic evolution - creationism and this is where creationism and evolution starts to blend together.
Just bring a species in from outside of the group. A lot of problems will not be expressed if only the mother or the father carries it. My wife comes from the other side of the world. I could not have gone any further to find a wife. But our son is very healthy.
This turns out not to be entirely correct. Though I don't think this is what is being referred to in this thread, Mutation Theory was the prevalent way to account for evolution in the early 1900s. IIRC this arose out of the discovery of Mendel's work by de Vries, Bateson and Correns. The notion was that speciation occured by large jumps caused by mutations. Natural Selection was discounted as of no real importance. Haldane and Sewall Wright resolved the issue in the 1920s.You spoke of the "theory of random mutation". There is no such thing.
What mechanism, those 50+ mutations at every birth that can’t even change an Asian or African into another race, versus actual empirical observation of exactly what does do it? Those mutations in every Husky and Mastiff that can’t cross the breed barrier versus actual empirical observations of exactly what does do it? Funny how everything to go from Asian and African to Afro-Asian is already in the genome, as is Husky and Mastiff to Chinook. Versus your (sorry their) fantasy of it needing to first be mutated in over millions of years. Why it took 9 months in the human and what 26 or 28 weeks for dogs? I got more evidence it’s already in the genome than you do it takes millions of years of mutation.
I wouldn’t either since every form of life was created fully formed. But that’s what they say.
Perhaps you should read the article on evolution as a fact and a theory.
Drawing conclusion from those so called mutations is called a theory. Stephen Jay Gould described fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts.
Creationism and Evolution has all the same facts. They just have different theories to explain those facts. I consider theistic evolution - creationism and this is where creationism and evolution starts to blend together.
Congratulations, you have accomplished the epithet of absurdity.Perhaps you should decide what you are talking about: the fact of mutations or the theory of evolution.
Hey, it’s them that claim the genome is now 98% non-functional because of error over time.
Surely your not going to ignore that I have already said the quadrillionth mutation may in some accidental way impart a benefit to the organism. But most result in that 98% non-functional trash that it ends up being.
Or just the fact that they are interbreeding, 3 of them so intensely that they are merging into one as they put it?
So why object to the empirical evidence then and propose something different far, far in the past when you couldn’t observe what mated with what?
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?