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.
There is a phenomena called "Phenotypic Plasticity" which is the ability of an organism to change its phenotype in response to changes in the environment. No mutations required. No "new" information has been added. Instead, what has happened is a change in how the genes are expressed.Read the entire article.
They developed cecal valves, special muscles that helped their digestion. An organ that wasn't there before.
There is a phenomena called "Phenotypic Plasticity" which is the ability of an organism to change its phenotype in response to changes in the environment. No mutations required. No "new" information has been added. Instead, what has happened is a change in how the genes are expressed.
Please show evidence to support your claim that the appearance of cecal valves in Italian wall lizards was the result of phenotype plasticity.
As soon as you show me they were a result of random mutations.
...secondly, some liizards already have cecal valves. In fact I even read where the ‘new’ muscular valve they found between the small and large intestine is simply an enlargement of muscles already present in the gut wall at this juncture.
The H-R diagrams of star clusters change with the age of the cluster. The main-sequence turn-off moves to lower luminosity as less massive stars exhaust hydrogen in their cores, and the red giant branch (of hydrogen shell burning stars) develops. How do you explain these changes except as a result of stellar evolution?
Yes, I have thought about it, many times; it is a constant preoccupation of mine. If you look at the SIMBAD astronomical database - http://www.simbad.u-strasbg.fr./simbad/ - you will find thousands of stellar parallax measurements. Also, there are distance measurements based on the use of 'standard candles', such as Cepheid variable stars.
By the way, your comparison is not entirely accurate; the parallax of the nearest star (alpha Centauri) corresponds to triangulating a point one mile away from two points ¼" apart. Your comparison is more appropriate to the distance of the Pleiades star cluster (136 parsecs).
There are no such constraints in those equations.
I read it here.
Now you claim it was due to random beneficial mutations.....will you present your scientific proof or will you retract?
That's nice. There are still no physical constraints implied in his equations. Really, your responses seem to be quite random -- you haven't given even a hint of physical explanation for why gravitational collapse is impossible, and you don't seem to understand the physics involved. What exactly is the point of this discussion?Gas Constant Definition:
The Gas Constant is the constant in the equation for the Ideal Gas Law:
PV = nRT
where P is pressure, V is volume, n is number of moles, and T is temperature.
And I'm getting tired you offering nothing but empty jeering instead of substantive discussion. You're the one proposing to junk huge swaths of modern biology, and your entire reason for doing so seems to be personal incredulity.I'm getting so tired of the comic book version of evolution.
Pointing out a plausible route by which something could have happened certainly is an answer to the simple assertion, "This couldn't have happened." If you want to be taken seriously, offer some substance: what prevents the dolphin echo-location system from accreting by small mutations? What step is impossible in there? Why do so many parts of that system closely resemble existing structures in other mammals? For that matter, why do so many features of dolphin anatomy resemble similar features in land mammals?Claiming this can happen or that can happen without providing a suitable means is not an answer.
And I'm getting tired you offering nothing but empty jeering instead of substantive discussion. You're the one proposing to junk huge swaths of modern biology, and your entire reason for doing so seems to be personal incredulity.
Pointing out a plausible route by which something could have happened certainly is an answer to the simple assertion, "This couldn't have happened." If you want to be taken seriously, offer some substance: what prevents the dolphin echo-location system from accreting by small mutations? What step is impossible in there? Why do so many parts of that system closely resemble existing structures in other mammals? For that matter, why do so many features of dolphin anatomy resemble similar features in land mammals?
I read it here.
Now you claim it was due to random beneficial mutations.....will you present your scientific proof or will you retract?
There's no evidence it's plasticity, especially since that isn't heritable. What other mechanism would it be?
What would you consider as scientific proof?
Every comparison of every pair of subpopulations, subspecies and divergent species shows that mutations add up, as does the study of ancient DNA from our own ancestors. As far as I can tell, the only way to believe that mutations don't add up is to know nothing about comparative genomics at all, or to reject it wholesale.When you can show me how mutations add up, get back to me. I'm not going to accept that so few random so-called beneficial mutations have the ability to occur in just the right place at just the right time in such a large field of DNA.
...and then do it again and again. Sorry Evo-ism fails.
Just repeating the same falsehood does not make it true.Unfortunately, the single life form to humanity Darwinist 'creationist' view is nothing more than a faith-based view.
--- Matthew HenryNone so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.
Anyone who (like "57" ) offered Answers in Genesis as an authoritative source will never consider any science at all. The specific study was interesting- a seriously large number of phenotypic changes appeared in just ~30 generations. They would in the absence of genetic studies lead to a reasonable assignment of a new "sub-species." What I would like to see are some re-introductions of the source. Is there a reproductive isolation?
There's no evidence it's plasticity, especially since that isn't heritable. What other mechanism would it be?
What would you consider as scientific proof?
Anyone who (like "57" ) offered Answers in Genesis as an authoritative source will never consider any science at all.
To be honest, I have no problem with rapid speciation. I call that micro-evolution. No mutations are required or mutations destroy what previously existed and change the animal. On the other hand Macro-evolutionism is a much different story.
I'm still waiting for someone to show how mutations add up. Why is this such a difficult topic for the evo-minded? You would think after 150+ years they would have a good answer.
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?