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.
but since evolution has no target its not the same at all. and this is why genetic algorithm cant represent a real scenario.
so if i will show you a reasonable explanation for the existence of this trait under the design model, you will agree that the design model is better since it can make a prediction about this trait?
we can say the same for fishes and mammals. a fish is more similar to other fish then to a mammal since both have designs suited for marine environment.
actually shark can do that too (live birth) and many shark also have a placenta:
Ultrastructure of the full-term shark yolk sac placenta. I. Morphology and cellular transport at the fetal attachment site. - PubMed - NCBI
so again your nested hierarchy is falling apart.
see above. its simply wrong since even according to evolution placenta suppose to evolve by convergent evolution. this fact alone break the suppose hierarchy
. so again: when we find a strcture that doesnt fit with the hierarchy they just "solve" it by convergent evolution. some mammals like the platypus actually laying eggs. so by this logic human suppose to be colser to shark then to the platypus. an evolutionery absurd.
the fact that even a car can has large wheels prove that this trait is independent.
you must do that. otherwise they will be just random numbers.I don't choose a target. The process of evolution has no long term target beyond the increased fitness of the next generation.
If there are reasons for dolphins to have air scent, then thats something evolution would use
but there is no reason for say 4% of the human genes to be devoted to scent when we can't use the. Even less so, if they serve no purpose on a dolphin.
Funny we've done that before. There was the e-coli experiment where the ability to use a different source of energy happened multiple times, they found that the bacteria in one group was using it, went back to before it showed up and let them evolve again and it happened again. So it's not like it's impossible, and generally once life is there, most genes are just improving whats already there.
Take the platypus venom, it's a gene duplication of a imune system gene that mutated,
There is other experiments where they knock out the ability for some bacteria to move by breaking a important gene, leave them in a place with food, but a large gap towards other food when that runs out and surprise surprise we see them move, even though the gene for movement was broken, and it wasn't fixing the broken gene, it was using a new novel way around the broken gene.
so a watch like in this image will not be evidence for design if its made from organic components and has a self replicating system?:Then what even makes it a watch? Does it show time? Why?
How was it made? A watch is a human concept, even if it was found in nature, it would follow evolutionary processes and is not an evidence for design just because of similarity in morphology. Read up on analogous organs. Seriously, do it.
Next time you step on a Boeing 747, remind yourself that it's fuel distribution system is the result of a GA.
As much as you think ignorance is merit about what time is and how it might be in the far universe and how that impacts the math and models....it is what it is.Your inability to comprehend what "merrit" means in this context, simply bars your from having any valuable input on this topic.
Lurkers...in case you are not familiar with this, all it means is that they feel their religion must be believed for no reason. Since science cannot prove it either way, they demand that their belief is accepted since they can't prove anything it isn't so!The null hypothesis does not need any evidence.
Nt really. I have no idea what the far universe is like. I am saying that nature on earth was different probably, and that science doesn't know.You are the one who's making the claim that the universe was different in the past. Upto you to demonstrate or support that.
It can't know what it doesn't know.Science can't falsify the unfalsifiable.
I can detect that old boy, even in science. Look for the trademark denial of creation, and you detect that spirit.The undetectable 7-headed dragon included.
Yes, my belief in the bible is verified to the hilt for time immemorial. The fact science doesn't know either what nature used to exist on earth, or whether time as we know it here exists in deep space is also verified by your fail.A more accurate way to express that would be "scenario's that actually are verifiable and supported by evidence". That your particular religious belief isn't verifiable, supportable, testable, falsifiable... is not science's fault.
It would need to admit it doesn't know it all, and has been making stuff up on beliefs. Stuff they cannot demonstrate, falsify, verify or support. Stuff that opposes the truth.Really? So for science to be taken seriously by you, it would have to allow undemonstrable, unfalsifiable, unverifiable, unsupportable claims?
That is what you do by trying to lump in origins sciences with actual science. That is just doing violence to the word science.It's kind of telling when you need to redefine science to also include pseudo-science, in order to be able to defend your religious beliefs.
Most creatures and man are no in the record early on so it has no merit. Your belief that the reason we are no there as fossils is because we were not on the planet or alive is religion. You just try to imagine the same nature existed. No. You have no support for that belief.All fossils could disappear instantly and the case for evolution would be as strong as ever, because of the genetic record alone.
lets check both scenarios. first: we have empirical evidence that speciation may take about less then 100 years:
Rapid Evolution Changes Species in Real Time | DiscoverMagazine.com
Watching new species evolve in real time
so lets assume a tipical speciation event= 100 years.
one of the largest family on earth is the curculionidae which contain almost 100,000 species. so if we start with 2 species then after about one generation of a speciation event (100 years) we will get 4 different species. and after another generation of speciation we will get 8 and so on. so we only need about less then 20 generation of speciation to get more then 100,000 different species (2^20) . or about 2000 years. if you see any problem note me and we will continue.
its also the result of human design. not evolution. remember that too.
Lurkers...in case you are not familiar with this, all it means is that they feel their religion must be believed for no reason.
Since science cannot prove it either way, they demand that their belief is accepted since they can't prove anything it isn't so!
Nt really.
I have no idea what the far universe is like
I am saying that nature on earth was different probably
As for the issue of time in the distant universe they do not know if that exists either as we speak. So what we see could be in the past, or future, or present! It could be of any size from microscopic to bigger than they thought. That means that you cannot use imagined great time from light from stars, in case you missed that.
Yes, my belief in the bible is verified to the hilt for time immemorial. The fact science doesn't know either what nature used to exist on earth, or whether time as we know it here exists in deep space is also verified by your fail.
It would need to admit it doesn't know it all, and has been making stuff up on beliefs.
Most creatures and man are no in the record early on so it has no merit. Your belief that the reason we are no there as fossils is because we were not on the planet or alive is religion. You just try to imagine the same nature existed. No. You have no support for that belief.
If anything, it would be "evidence" for HUMAN design.so a watch like in this image will not be evidence for design if its made from organic components and has a self replicating system?:
wood watch - Google Search:
Yup - and combine the two, and you have caterpillar (tank) tracks. Yay for functional flexibility!Like how a wheel can be used for transport, but when used as a pulley, the wheel can be used for an entirely different purpose.
so evolution is true in any case?
so why evolution evolved them at the first place if we dont need them? the design model can explain it by degeneration. like a broken mirror in a car.
actually some traits are very simple and some arent. a zit in the forehead is a new trait. but its a simple trait and no one will argue its evidence for evolution.
they still different. how many mutations we need to change one into another? are they functional without any other parts?
so if we will remove a flagellum from a bacteria with a flalgellum it will evolve a flagellum easily in real time?
Ah, we are back to nonsense questions. I have one for you: If the moon is not the moon is it the moon?so a watch like in this image will not be evidence for design if its made from organic components and has a self replicating system?:
wood watch - Google Search:
Ever get the feeling you are talking to a wall?Never said otherwise.
I just said that GA's optimized that fuel distribution system.
GA's did a better job then humans at optimizing it.
Because GA's work.
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind.How many times must it be repeated?
we can say the same for fishes and mammals. a fish is more similar to other fish then to a mammal since both have designs suited for marine environment.
actually shark can do that too (live birth) and many shark also have a placenta:
Ultrastructure of the full-term shark yolk sac placenta. I. Morphology and cellular transport at the fetal attachment site. - PubMed - NCBI
so again your nested hierarchy is falling apart.
...And birds are close to house flies? Sorry convergence on one feature does not override all we know about hierarchy.some mammals like the platypus actually laying eggs. so by this logic human suppose to be colser to shark then to the platypus. an evolutionery absurd.
No, the fact that some cars have big wheels does not prove trucks do not need big wheels.the fact that even a car can has large wheels prove that this trait is independent.
I do not need to demonstrate the unknown. Your beliefs are not the default unless you mean your default.Nope.
It means that the default, is the default.
Your "different state past", departs from the default. You're the one claiming the past was different. Demonstrate your claim.
You beliefs do. Otherwise they don't make it to some default.The null hypothesis doesn't require any proving.
There is no reason to assume the laws of nature were different in the past, so why would we assume that they were?
Stop claiming either that you know they were not different, or that we must default to unbelief and ignorance.Then stop claiming it was different.
History of God and man, and the fac science doesn't know.Why?
I am claiming science doesn't know, and that is demonstrated many times. So we have beliefs, and I see no reason to adopt what I see as baseless, godless, clueless beliefs for no reason at all.But you're "not making any claims" ha?
Science IS bizarre religion."science doesn't know, therefor my bizar religious beliefs are correct!"
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?