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.
ah yes, my bad."Darwinism" is not a term generally used to describe any part of the modern evolutionary synthesis. You are completely misrepresenting their position and lying when you make claims like this.
"Adaptionism " has been outmoded since the 1960s. Its passing did absolutely nothing to undermine common descent or the importance of natural selection to adaptive evolution.the point of the matter is that "adaptionism" in the darwinian sense is outmoded and incorrect.
I don't even know what this means. Lots has been learned about DNA, about how genes work and about how noncoding DNA regulates genes. All of it has done absolutely nothing to undermine common descent or the importance of natural selection to adaptive evolution.the notion that DNA is some sort of "gene library" is also incorrect.
It's not clear that anyone ever thought of genes as the only method of "change". If you mean DNA, it's still not clear that anything other than DNA (or RNA, in the case of some viruses) matters to evolution.the gene can no longer be seen as the only method of "change".
<blink>the lifelong immunity to certain diseases is proof of that
Darwinian evolutionism commonly uses the bait and switch method of promotion of their Godless creationism worldview. "Common ancestry" is the term used to 'prove' that humanity is just another of many life forms, one no better than the other (humans are of no more worth than chimps) and that the creative force for the creation of all life, including humanity (and chimps), is by only random/chance/mindless/meaningless/purposeless/goalless naturalistic mechanisms. At this point, the 'common ancestry' switcheroo takes place and it's further claimed that humanity had it's source in some unknown single life form of long long ago.
Bottom line, it's simply promotion of the philosophical worldview of atheistic Darwinist creationism, a faith based belief system promoted as science.
ah yes, my bad.
i forgot to put the word "neo" in front of darwinism, so sue me.
the point of the matter is that "adaptionism" in the darwinian sense is outmoded and incorrect.
the notion that DNA is some sort of "gene library" is also incorrect.
the gene can no longer be seen as the only method of "change".
the lifelong immunity to certain diseases is proof of that
Um... Did you watch the videos in the OP? Common ancestry is one of the things used as a method to discover things like oncogenes, which led to both a nobel prize in biology and an entirely new kind of chemotherapy medicine!
are you aware that i haven't quoted anybody?Are you aware that all of the people whom you are quoting think your own views are completely detached from reality?
Who cares what you want to call it? If common descent is false, the logic does not work. If common descent is false, you cannot get from point A to point B. The fact that they did get from point A to point B is strong evidence that common descent is, in fact, true.They can do the same discovery by using simple logic.
There are millions of places in the genome where humans differ genetically from one another. These are the result of mutations that have happened at some point in the past and that have been passed down to offspring. For example, on chromosome 2, at position 136,608,896, some humans have a cytosine and others have a thymine. I want to know which was the original base and which is the base it mutated into. Which is which?
Who cares what you want to call it? If common descent is false, the logic does not work. If common descent is false, you cannot get from point A to point B. The fact that they did get from point A to point B is strong evidence that common descent is, in fact, true.
they also say that "gradualism" isn't, i believe koonin calls it "pan-adaptionism".And they all say that common descent is true. So why are you linking to them?
Did you watch the videos in the first post?
The evolutionary model has been used to make countless predictions and advances in our lives. Common ancestry was a crucial part in many of these discoveries.
Sometimes the one with the wider distribution is the newer variant; for a variant at 50% frequency, it's a tossup. Common variants are all too old for ancient DNA to be useful. In the lab, either could mutate into the other. So none of these approaches really helps.I am ignorant on the information. And I do not use the idea of common ancestry at all. But logically, I would suggest:
Trace two two variations backward:
1. Find chromosome 2 in dead people of different time. (I guess this is pretty hard)
2. Correlate the occurrences with geography (or races) and find the source area. The one has wider distribution would be more original.
3. Take samples of chromosome 2 and let it mutate in the lab and observe the results.
Statistics would be a major tool to make the evaluation. Once you are out of samples, that would be the end of your study. The idea of common ancestry is not helpful at all.
I like you to tell me the methods used in your profession.
Sometimes the one with the wider distribution is the newer variant; for a variant at 50% frequency, it's a tossup. Common variants are all too old for ancient DNA to be useful. In the lab, either could mutate into the other. So none of these approaches really helps.
I still want to know how to tell whether it was a T or a C originally. You wrote, "If I can understand what do the questions mean, I am 100% sure I can answer them with simple logic." You understand the question now -- so tell me the answer based on simple logic.
No. I expect you to support your claims yourself.
Were these discoveries made using the 'evolutionary model' of random/chance naturalistic methods or was there input from intelligent sources?
here is some more of what koonin didn't say:
The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. The hallmark of the Darwinian discourse of 2009 is the plurality of evolutionary processes and patterns. Nevertheless, glimpses of a new synthesis might be discernible in emerging universals of evolution.
and:
Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or 'forest' of life.
You gave me a guarantee that you'd be able to solve the problem using just logic, not that you'd offer some suggestions that wouldn't work based on logic.I used common logic thinking to give you a few suggestions. They may too rough to be useful (I am not quite sure yet), but they are what I can think of in 5 minutes due to the limitation of knowledge. My suggestions do not emphasize on right or wrong (work or not work), but on the design of study. You can see that it comes from nothing but common logic thinking.
No, no -- you go first.So, you must be able to use the idea of common descendant to solve this problem. How would that work?
That's entirely accurate. The part of HGT doesn't apply to organisms like vertebrates, but aside from that, it's true. It's also pretty much the consensus view of evolutionary biologists. So what point are you trying to make? And what do these statements have to do with the points made by Cadet in the OP? Nothing said by Koonin here, or anywhere else, does anything to suggest that common descent isn't true, that natural selection plays a key role in adaptive evolution, and that the usefulness of evolution pointed out in the OP is very real.here is some more of what koonin didn't say:
The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. The hallmark of the Darwinian discourse of 2009 is the plurality of evolutionary processes and patterns. Nevertheless, glimpses of a new synthesis might be discernible in
emerging universals of evolution.
Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or 'forest' of life.
my post was koonins own words, sourced from "the origin at 150" and "genomic research".In case there is any confusion as to how accurate Whois's claims are:
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?