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.
the problem is, my sources aren't creationist, and you haven't proven they are.Support what? Your points and your sources can be found on creationist sites. That's a fact. I'm not drawing a conclusion from that. Just making an observation. I don't have to support anything.
an observation you have yet to support.
edit:
as a matter of fact i am going to ask that you do so now, or your post will be reported for flaming.
only because you are willfully blind.Whether you found them there or not, I can't say.
My point was, the reason people are accusing whois of using creationist material is that all of these sources along with the points whois is making can be found on creationist sites and in creationist books.
trust me, i've thought about it, and still might.
-boyce rensberger, the new york times 1980the popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong
-ibid.exactly how evolution happened is a matter of great controversy among biologists (and) it reached a crescendo last month, as some 150 scientists specializing in evolutionary studies met for 4 days to thrash out a variety of new hypothesis that are challenging older ideas.
no clear resolution of the controversies was in sight.
correct.
i have seen no indication that bats were anything other than bats, they always have been, and they will always be.
the commonality of DNA makes it easy to come up with "similarities" that aren't reality.
there can easily be 2 different organisms that displays enough similarities to assume one came from the other when in fact nothing like that happened.
the "mutations" of which you speak, most of these are transposons.
the "mutations" that matter take place in our HOX genes, and are responsible for some of our nastiest deformities.
they are responsible for the majority of miscarriages, and they are responsible for some cancers.
in my opinion, these types of mutations will not accumulate, but instead result in a profound change in the organism.
this implies that each organism has a unique HOX pattern that cannot be breached.
Not difficult to figure out what is going on here.
the problem is, my sources aren't creationist, and you haven't proven they are.
i see.
how do you put this in perspective with the recent findings of HOX genes?
how do you resolve this with the most recent (1980) conference on evolution?
the conclusion of this conference was that small changes do not accumulate.
gould referred to the record as being in a "woeful state".
eldredge goes a step further by saying "some would say no transitional fossils exist".
the findings about HOX genes seems to support that conclusion.
and this, from a recent genetics experiment:
what do you suppose the story is here?
no.You just happened upon these quotes in your own reading of the original source material?
no.
they came to me in a vision i had when i was in a tarot session.
yes, when you post them.Are you ever going to acknowledge known mutations in human HOX genes that are not lethal and are found in a high percentage of people in the human population?
it's the most recent that i'm aware of.What makes you think that a conference 35 years ago was the most recent one?
i never said they did to my knowledge.And here we go with the usual misinformation. Where did Gould or Eldredge ever mention mutations?
here is the excerpt:
-boyce rensberger, the new york times 1980
the above article has this to say about the conference me and sfs were discussing:
-ibid.
contrast that with what lewin had to say.
the above comes from a newspaper, lewins quote comes from a well respected science source.
taking all of the evidence seems to suggest lewin was closer to the answer.
corroborating evidence for lewins stand comes from another well respected source, "nature" in the form of a graph of primate transitional fossils.
there are so few primate fossils that no conclusion at all can be reached.
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?