read the sources i have provided.
yeah, just did.
i found no empirical evidence that science transformed one animal into a different kind of animal.
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.
read the sources i have provided.Which part? What in the modern synthesis is not supported by the evidence, or must be supplanted by new evidence?
yeah, just did.Have you checked out this thread? http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationist-arguments-against-ervs.7898737/
Referring to something in the singular when it should be plural can lead to (or comes from) a misunderstanding, can't (or doesn't) it?I understand what you are saying, but it is a bit misleading in the way you said it. Rather than saying from a simple organism to a complex organism, might I suggest saying, from a population of simple organisms to a population of complex organisms over time due to any number of environmental and/or biological changes/influences. The key being there that ToE doesn't say individuals evolve, rather populations evolve.
Genus.Define kind.
Online Etymology Dictionary said:(plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," from PIE root *gene- "to produce, give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to family and tribal groups.
Cognates in this highly productive word group include Sanskrit janati "begets, bears," janah "race," janman- "birth, origin," jatah "born;" Avestan zizanenti "they bear;" Greek gignesthai "to become, happen," genos "race, kind," gonos "birth, offspring, stock;" Latin gignere "to beget," gnasci "to be born," genius "procreative divinity, inborn tutelary spirit, innate quality," ingenium "inborn character," possibly germen "shoot, bud, embryo, germ;" Lithuanian gentis "kinsmen;" Gothic kuni "race;" Old English cennan "beget, create," gecynd "kind, nature, race;" Old High German kind "child;" Old Irish ro-genar "I was born;" Welsh geni "to be born;" Armenian chanim "I bear, I am born").
I understand what you are saying, but it is a bit misleading in the way you said it. Rather than saying from a simple organism to a complex organism, might I suggest saying, from a population of simple organisms to a population of complex organisms over time due to any number of environmental and/or biological changes/influences. The key being there that ToE doesn't say individuals evolve, rather populations evolve.
i really don't feel like getting into a war of semantics with you, but if you must:Define kind.
i really don't feel like getting into a war of semantics with you, but if you must:
a dinosaur and a bird for example.
let's see the empirical evidence of this.
science says it happened, so let's see the hard core evidence of it, namely the lab results that prove it.
see, the thing is, with evolution you are accepting "evidence" that you would NEVER accept if you were a judge at a murder trial.
when you read science papers that state "gene trees and species trees seldom correlate", you get the feeling that something isn't quite right.
the various nonesense surrounding what certain scientists say, being repeated by evolutionists and published in peer reviewed articles.
why is this the cadet?
some people just do not want to let go of their "small accumulating changes" idea of what evolution actually is.
the idea that the "origin of life" was from a pool of organisms is another concept.
this concept can indeed imply that there is some kind of barrier between kinds, with gene duplication and HGT accounting for most of the variation we see at the species level.
also, i firmly believe that science will go to any length to obscure a biblical correlation.
i say this in relation to epigenetics and transposons, i will bet any amount of money that these 2 concepts have biblical parallels which is why they were so hotly contested.
i really don't feel like getting into a war of semantics with you
a dinosaur and a bird for example.
let's see the empirical evidence of this.
science says it happened, so let's see the hard core evidence of it, namely the lab results that prove it.
when you read science papers that state "gene trees and species trees seldom correlate", you get the feeling that something isn't quite right.
this concept can indeed imply that there is some kind of barrier between kinds, with gene duplication and HGT accounting for most of the variation we see at the species level.
also, i firmly believe that science will go to any length to obscure a biblical correlation.
i say this in relation to epigenetics and transposons, i will bet any amount of money that these 2 concepts have biblical parallels which is why they were so hotly contested.
i provide the source with most of the things i take from science papers.I googled that statement in quotes and the only place I found it was here, so....
Well, you're wrong. A creature doesn't mutate. Once a creature is born it's done. It doesn't mutate. Evolution takes place between generations.
Evolution includes detrimental mutations, which are selected against.
Are you denying the possibility that beneficial mutations can occur?
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED THAT MOST MUTATIONS ARE HARMFUL.
Are you going to back this with evidence or not?
...Those are the exact same thing, Justa. And the modern theory of evolution has an awful lot to say about HGT... And how virtually meaningless it is among eukaryotes. The fact that you know nothing about the literature does nothing to reflect on this fact or what it has to do with evolution.
And we've already been over why this claim is completely wrong. The most recent universal common human ancestor (that is, the most recent person to whom every single person alive can trace direct ancestry) almost certainly lived within recorded history. In fact, I addressed this in the very first post of my other thread; you never responded to this point. The most recent human common ancestor may very well have lived after Confucius.
And that's humans. A species which spans the entire globe, contains billions of individuals, and which up until very recently lacked easy mechanisms to spread within their various groups, as well as non-trivial cultural prohibitions in many cases. What would it be among a specific population of british moths, who reproduce much faster, have much shorter lifespans, are considerably more geologically contained, and are much more likely to undergo genetic bottleneck events due to how easily a shift in tree color could cause their main protection from predators to stop working? It's trivial to understand how a beneficial mutation can spread through the entire populace.
Define "kind".
We call it cancer. Then there is death. A pretty big change. Disease can make some big changes. And disease can pass to offspring.
Some animals change their sexuality based on living conditions.
Fossil evidence IS empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is not found only in the laboratory. If you keep yourself blind to the evidence it does not matter how much is shown to you.
This is clearly not true. In fact one of the main reasons that your side has lost court case after court case is because evolution is supported by evidence and creationism is not.
You do not seem to understand HGT. It makes not such implication.
It's a significant, meaningful question. When you say "science has failed to transform one animal into another kind", I have no idea what you mean. Do you mean from one species into a different species in the same genus? Do you mean from one genus to another genus in the same clade? Do you mean two highly differentiated clades, like a fruit fly turning into a dragonfly? What do you mean? We've seen the beginnings of speciation events in the lab, we've observed new species appear that previously did not exist, and of course the nested hierarchy of the tree of life is dead-on evidence of evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
"One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.
First of all lets get one thing straight. I am certainly not arguing mankind's common ancestor did not live in the recent past, since Adam and Eve came about in the recent past. I only argue what those decedents were and how that common ancestor came about.
Secondly this means mutation is useless as we observe populations today - they are too large and no mutation will ever become fixed in the population. As of today - evolution by mutation is completely useless as a viable means of increasing the complexity of a population as their exists no mechanism for the sharing of this mutation to the populations at large
since you reject LGT.
Tell us all how a mutation that beneficially affects Bob - is going to beneficially affect the rest of the population???? Go ahead, explain this to us. Don't run from it. So we can certainly conclude evolution is no longer a viable process with today's population and fixation within the population.
You ask us to believe in some mythical ancestor - just as you are claiming we do, but this seems to be ok for you to do so and call it science, while when others do its religion.
SHOW ME A SINGLE FOSSIL OF THIS COMMON ANCESTOR THAT SPLIT INTO HUMAN AND APE??????????
So you can't, can you. You don't even have a possible one do you. So it's all just wishful thinking and computer simulation right? We would get the same exact results if we started with Adam and Eve in those computer simulations, wouldn't we.
You are quite mistaken if you think anyone believes the population a few thousands of years ago was more than 2.
But you have yet to show one single example of mating species where mutation was involved - except in your beliefs. Gene recombination occurs and new dominant and recessive traits become fixed. Not by mutation, but by natural processes built into the genomes.
But you are still avoiding discussing those Finches, even though I have given you opportunity to do so in every single post. Still fail to defend your claims of speciation occurring. Stop running.
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?