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.
Life on earth is carbon based. Science says it does not have to be, they speculate it could be silicone based. What it could be does not matter, what matters is that life on earth is carbon based. As they say we are star stuff. Somewhere in the universe a Star had to die to create the carbon that we are made of.
Evolution does not speculate as to where the elements come from. Evolution does not speculate as to where the natural laws come from that regulates the whole process of evolution.
I dont believe in evolution at all.
I was commenting on the contradiction that evolution was claimed to not be random, yet proceeded because of random mutations.
Do we have a creature that we can show evolved a forelimb into a feathered wing?
Together, you called baby and adults of the same exact species separate species, all to support your theory that speciation occurs. Your claimed based upon similarity fails since those babies and adults were almost exactly similar. I mean please, is that your best response?LOL. Do you realize that you're arguing, "All of the fossils which we've grouped together based on extreme similarity happen to be extremely similar"? And somehow you think this disproves evolution?
Not only is it silly, but it's wrong. If you want to look for evolution of a species, you have to look outside of that species. For example, just as evolution predicted, we recently discovered a new species, Timurlengia euotica, which exists between the gap from the smaller tyrannosaurs to the larger later T. rex variety of tyrannosaur, which had much sharper senses than the smaller tyrannosaurs. T. euotica has the more advanced senses, similar to T. rex, but the size of the earlier species.
The fact that we found fossils of such a clear transition between the two, in a time period between the two, just as evolution predicts, is itself evidence for evolution. If you're interested see:
New T. rex discovery proves evolution is actually true … again
And that is merely one example among many.
Ignore history at your peril.Cite one.
The fact is, you can't. Even back as far as 1755, when Immanuel Kant speculated on the shape of our galaxy (and it turned out he was correct), even then he thought that nebulae might be separate galaxies themselves. This fact was demonstrated correct as early as 1917 by Heber Curtis.
At no point were there any "peer reviewed papers saying the Milky-Way was the entire universe."
If you have to make up lies to bolster your argument, then that's a pretty good indication of how bad your argument is.
I honestly have no idea what you think you're arguing here.
Coelacanths exist. So what?
I don't think we ever heard about "the transitional coelacanth", and I don't even know what you think that means.
Coelacanths do somewhat resemble the early ancestors of tetrapods, but so what? They're a different branch. The Sarcopterygii split into the Crossopterygii and Rhipidistia, the former of which evolved into coelacanths, the latter of which evolved into Tetrapodomorpha. Also, nothing about evolution says that coelacanths have to change or die out.
I'm truly baffled as to what you think the existence of coelacanths (dis)proves.
I always laugh when creationists say "fully formed", because it just demonstrates that they don't understand what evolution actually says. Evolution doesn't say that creatures will appear with "half a wing", to pull an example numerous creationists have actually argued. All animals will be "fully formed", all the parts will work. If they didn't, it likely wouldn't have survived to evolve further.
Really? Show me the gradual in the Cambrian explosion? Or the gradual from one layer to the next?Also, it's appearance wasn't "sudden", it was gradually evolved over about 5 million years. That may be "sudden" in geological terms, but it's a perfectly reasonable amount of time which fits the evolutionary model.
And it most certainly had predecessors, such as Panderichthys and Eusthenopteron. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that it had no ancestors. Even if we didn't have fossils of some of its ancestors (which we do), you can't jump to the conclusion that they don't exist. Even without those ancestors, we can show genetic markers which support the conclusion that these species shared a common ancestor at this time, so this is a well supported conclusoin.
As its amazing to see how much deception and lack of historical knowledge you can fit into yours. You forget I grew up during the stories of the colecanth and know exactly what was taught.Honestly, it's amazing how much wrongness you managed to fit into one single sentence.
You shouldnt beliueve everything you are told by PR specialists. Do your research and you will find that E coli could always metabolize citrus. The only thing that changed was that abiklity was changed to dominance so it could metabolize it fully.OK, let me ask you, how do you determine what is or isn't E. coli? One method is to determine if it can anaerobically metabolize citrate. If it can't, then it's more likely to be E. coli, because E. coli can't do that. In fact, testing for this Cit- phenotype is one way that's used to tell E. coli contamination apart from salmonella contamination, which instead has a Cit+ phenotype.
I thought you said earlier that dogs remain dogs, peas, peas and fruit flies fruit flies? I think you already answered that, but are just double-talking now so you can change your mind later if necessary. Since they still call it E coli, I guess it does mean its still E coli.So, if E. coli evolved the ability to metabolize citrate anaerobically, is it still E. coli?
But could always metabolize citrus. It simply adapted due to the fact it was given no other food source.The E. coli long-term evolution experiment, which was done in an anaerobic environment in a medium with a lot of citrate (which was originally included to help killing penicillin in other experiments). Over tens of thousands of generations, the bacteria being studied evolved the heretofore nonexistent ability to metabolize citrate anaerobically.
So YOU say.This is, by definition, evolution of that species. Something you deny exists.
Because in every respect those E coli are the same except for one gene being expressed as a dominant gene.Do you deny this evidence? And if one change can evolve, why can't other changes happen again later? And why can't all of those changes accumulate over many generations until it no longer resembles those earlier generations to categorize them together?
The evidence that evolution can put one foot in front of the other is too overwhelming to deny, but if you can't deny that, then how can you deny that repeatedly putting one foot in front of another can take you a mile? I honestly don't get that.
Scientists discover organism that hasn’t evolved in more than 2 billion years
Who is feeding you this nonsense? Where’d you get the idea that scientists, the people whose job it is to find out about the world around us, can’t tell the difference between an ancestor and a contemporary?
And even better, you think that you, an unlettered layman, know better than those with extensive training in the field? You can’t even tell me what a “kind” is.
it's not what you said here:
"Except the logical progression of the fossil record, with no exceptions"
so we indeed found exceptions.
Yes and the very first thing he does is to admit that he does not have all the answers. In fact answers only create more questions. For every answer people respond with a ton of questions.Francis collins follows the scientific evidence.
One of the big things to remember though is that there is a discordance between changes between genotype and phenotype. Phenotypes can remain relatively fixed even if organisms undergo considerable genetic changes, and vise-versa.
Since we don't have 2 billion year old DNA to compare, we can't really see what is really happening under the hood.
From a phenotype POV though, if an organism is well adapted to its environment and that environment remains relatively constant, one wouldn't necessarily expect much phenotype-specific change.
Science is like the soup of the day or the flavor of the week. If you do not like what is on the menu today then stop back tomorrow. Everything will be new and you can have a whole new selection to choose from. IF you do not offer people new choices you will soon be out of business.they are so locked up in debate over it to this day.
What? I am shocked!!! Do you mean to tell us that they lied in Jurassic Park, they did not find dinosaur DNA still inside fossilized mosquitoes preserved intact in amber???you dont have any DNA from dinosaurs
Yah, you dont have any DNA from dinosaurs, but it doesnt seem to bother you there. Nor do you have any from that missing common ancestor, yet it doesnt seem to hinder you there either.
I sense double-talk....
So if it can be interpreted to show evolution its a fact, no DNA needed for confirmation, if it can be interpreted to show no evolution its questionable because we have no DNA.....
Thats right, can see you didnt bother to watch the video. The science of actual bone growth proved them wrong. Not that I realize science means that much to n evolutionist.
You cant tell me what a species is. Even the experts can't, they are so locked up in debate over it to this day. Your one to talk, when your own experts cant even follow their own definitions they themselves wrote.....
But I understand ad hominem attacks is all you really have, so I forgive you.
The internet is public, the forum itself is on a private server. The rules are you can only complain about comment made about you. They do not allow you to complain about comments made to someone else.You're on a public forum posting in a public thread.
Yes and no one has ever shown me a beneficial mutation.HiEv said:Mutations exist.
But mutations are evil,
HiEv said:nothing about creationism explains anything or is well-substantiated.
Show me, give it your best shot. The only thing that is not well-substantiated is your understanding of creationism. Not everyone understands creationism and perhaps you need someone to explain it for you to help you to understand.
No, because if you dont keep changing your story, it will end up being falsified. A theory that can change like silly putty is no theory at all. One that cant be falsified because one simply changes what they say it is day to day is no theory at all. When one can ignore finches interbreeding right in front of their eyes and refuse to admit to the mistake in classification, but continue it, one has no theory at all.Science is like the soup of the day or the flavor of the week. If you do not like what is on the menu today then stop back tomorrow. Everything will be new and you can have a whole new selection to choose from. IF you do not offer people new choices you will soon be out of business.
There is no double talk. It's just basic understanding of the difference between the phenotype versus the genotype of an organism. I mean, you *do* know the difference, don't you?
Especially when considering a basic definition of evolution as a change in allele frequencies within a population over time. The basic definition of evolution applies to the genotype. There is nothing that mandates changes to phenotype. It just happens in some cases and clearly not as much in others.
You didnt answer my question.
So if it can be interpreted to show evolution its a fact, no DNA needed for confirmation, if it can be interpreted to show no evolution its questionable because we have no DNA for confirmation..... That about sum it up?
Yes you offered the argument B362 and they gave you the counter argument xy2z. We can save time if we just assign a number to the argument and the counter argument.I was commenting on the contradiction that evolution was claimed to not be random
Yes and no one has ever shown me a beneficial mutation. We know that all things work out for the best. We know that God causes good to come out of evil. But mutations are evil, it is God that is able to turn evil around and cause good to come out of the evil we find here in the world we live in.
We live in a fallen world and mutations are a part of the fall. It is God that is doing a work to bring about redemption. This is His desire to restore all of creation to His plan and purpose. He is going to undo the harm and the damage that the devil and man has inflicted on His Creation.
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?