it wasn't directed at you, it was directed "for those that want"
you don't have an interest in science?
me too, wanna dance?
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.
it wasn't directed at you, it was directed "for those that want"What you quoted me saying ("What you have done is encroached upon is copyright infringement." has no relationship to what you just stated.
you don't have an interest in science?Even though I have free access to all issues of the journal Science, I have no interest on that topic.
me too, wanna dance?I'm a physical science guy.
you don't have an interest in science?
God is.i have some real difficulties getting my hands around a godlike figure.
Good for you.whois said:OTOH, when i start looking at things like DNA, its coding and transcription scheme, i can't help but think there is some kind of intelligence at work here.
I'm on record here as saying I think the Antichrist will meld abiogenesis to evolution during the Tribulation period ... and demonstrate how it works by giving life to an image.whois said:i honestly believe that this sort of thing will be found not only about abiogenesis, but evolution too.
punctuated equilibrium is another theory that has been incorporated into evolution.
this theory certainly wasn't accepted because science anticipated more fossils to be found.
granted, HGT can explain this, but it also says HGT has major effects on ALL of the record.
as of this date, no one has provided any evidence why or how HGT would affect some organisms and not others.
in regards to PE, explain what you mean by "at the species level".There is just so much wrong with this that I don't know where to begin. PE is not a theory. It is an explanation for why we find so many fossils for transitions at genus or higher level, but very few at the species level. I have no idea what horizontal gene transfer has to do with PE or vertebrate fossils because it's very rare amongst animals.
i really don't know what to say about all of this.God is.
And is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.Good for you.
I believe, of course, that God created DNA.
But I also believe that Satan tried to get scientists to believe it came from the minds of aliens (viz., panspermia) by leaving DNA crop circles on our landscape.
As far as I know, it hasn't worked yet.I'm on record here as saying I think the Antichrist will meld abiogenesis to evolution during the Tribulation period ... and demonstrate how it works by giving life to an image.
The result will be so successful, scientists will line up to take the Mark.
And after they do, that's when the "great tribulation" or "time of Jacob's trouble" or "second half of the Tribulation" will start.
Ya.unfortunately science, and a great many people, require some kind of tangible evidence.
Indeed.whois said:my biggest problem is trying to determine how a god can create life without any kind of physical means of doing so.
in regards to HGT, i have a couple papers ( i have to find them) that state HGT is more common than once believed in animals.
also, no one has offered any theory as to why it would be common amongst unicellular life, but not with multicellular life.
the papers i've read does not put a rate on this.
What's the total rate?
the fact that HGT happens at all in animals negates the above position.If I had to guess, I'd say it's because unicellular life has a much, much simpler path to HGT (simply sharing a plasmid ring will do the trick) whereas in multicellular life, such mechanisms are generally not available. But that's just my best guess.
Isn't that like assuming that all seals can fly because you've seen birds do it?the fact that HGT happens at all in animals negates the above position.
the question here is, what are the differences of cells that allows or disallows HGT?Isn't that like assuming that all seals can fly because you've seen birds do it?
the papers i've read does not put a rate on this.
they simply say that it is less than unicellular life.
to imply that this is "tiny" is a strawman.
most scientists believe that HGT resulted in the major evolutionary transition to multicellular life, which i hardly call tiny.
the fact that HGT happens at all in animals negates the above position.
aren't some bacteria classified as both plant and animal?
in regards to PE, explain what you mean by "at the species level".
niles eldredge is on the record as early as 1980 saying we have very few transitional fossils, and that some would say we have none.
in regards to HGT, i have a couple papers ( i have to find them) that state HGT is more common than once believed in animals.
also, no one has offered any theory as to why it would be common amongst unicellular life, but not with multicellular life.
the best we can say in this regard is that HGT is not as pervasive in animals.
@Loudmouth you seem to know quite a bit on HGT (given that ERV thread); maybe you can be of some assistance? The best I could find was this recent article talking about Crisp's recent paper in the AAAS. They found 145 foreign genes in humans. This is compared to around 25,000 genes that code for proteins, which make up about 1.5% of the total genome. So basically, HGT accounts for about 0.0087% of the genome. This is secondary literature, but the paper in question shouldn't be too hard to find given that this is literally the press release about that paper.0.0087%. That's really not that much. And this is the most recent, up-to-date research which supposedly has increased the number quite substantially. I will, however, admit that I'm more than a little confused, because Wiki cites the number of ERV insertion sites as about 8% of the genome. So... Is that not HGT? Time to do a little research. Well, actually, time to do the dishes, then hope that Loudmouth knows the answer, and then, if I really have to, do a little research.
Ah yes, the proverbial 2nd law of TD. I wonder who came up with that claim originally. I can think of three things right off the bat why it doesn't exclude evolution.
- Its about the transfer of heat in an isolated system which has nothing to do with evolution.
- The environment in which life exists is not an isolated system.
- Even if it were an isolated system, it wouldn't prevent evolution.
You aren't talking about thermodynamics anymore. You seem to be referencing some kind of "Lack of Conservation of Information" law... which doesn't exist.But the idea that adding energy to a system would help anything is funny.
Adding energy only increases disorder unless and until you have a way to convert it to a useful form, and a design to follow.
How so? In your own words, please?You do know that the horse chart was discredited decades ago, don't you?
But the idea that adding energy to a system would help anything is funny.
Adding energy only increases disorder unless and until you have a way to convert it to a useful form, and a design to follow.
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?