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.
Will do -- nice chatting with you.Look man, I'm not here to score points by denigrating other's point of view or trading stupid ego shots. I'm happy to discuss facts and details with you but, keep the low brow shots to yourself.
More of the coloring book description. I get it, it's the best you can do.It doesn't have to happen in a particular order nor in successive members of only one lineage. Mutations occur somewhere in the population and then if they statistically confer higher odds of surviving to reproduce they will inevitably increase in frequency in the population.
Their is no such thing as de-evolution, there is simply changes in allele frequency over time.
I edited my post to include evidence--you can follow the links.
The card analogy relates to probability which you brought up in your post. It is precisely on topic and a proper response to your critique of the likelihood of eco location in dolphins.
I think space aliens tinkering with their version of CRISPER is more probable than random chance evolutionism where the so-called mutations that are consideed as beneficial have the ability in all of the several billion base pair of DNA to occur again and again, over and over in a proto-dolphins progeny to the point an echo-location system is realized.I see no problem with a dolphin’s eco-location developing, either, but that for me, that just means that I think evolution is the most likely explanation. I always remain skeptical.
Maybe space aliens came and tinkered with the ancestors of dolphins. I'm constantly coming up with silly ideas like that, and I can't completely dismiss them.
In true skepticism, one rejects all knowledge on principle, hoping to acquire a higher level of understanding.What is it with the asinine idea that skepticism is about rejecting everything all the time?
Care to point out the error?More of the coloring book description. I get it, it's the best you can do.
I believe in mutations. I simply undestand the evos want us to have faith that 'beneficial' mutations which are too few have the ability to occur in just the right spot of several billion posible locations ...and often in just the right time...over and over again in an animals progeny to the point that a new organ, appendage, system etc is realized.Care to point out the error?
A childish one-lineer isn't actually a point.
In addition, do you seriously not believe in mutations?
As I stated that is neither predicted or necessary.I believe in mutations. I simply undestand the evos want us to have faith that 'beneficial' mutations which are too few have the ability to occur in just the right spot of several billion posible locations ...and often in just the right time...over and over again in an animals progeny to the point that a new organ, appendage, system etc is realized.
When will people who claim ad hominem attacks bother to learn what an ad hominem attack is. Here are two sentences:So, now you have to pitch an ad-hom attack against me? I understand that to mean you don't have an answer .
I'm sorry ... were you attempting to answer my question? or am I supposed to guess you're giving me a simple YES or NO?
When will people who claim ad hominem attacks bother to learn what an ad hominem attack is. Here are two sentences:
"The arguments that Peter makes about evolution can be largely ignored because Peter does not bathe very often."
"The arguments that Peter makes about evolution can be largely ignored because Peter has a misguided and often flawed understanding of evolution. "
The first example is an ad hominem attack because it challenges Peter's grasp of evolutionary theory on the basis of something unrelated to it.
The second example is not an ad hominem attack since it challenges the value of Peter's comments about evolution based upon Peter's knowledge of evolution.
When your objections are phrased in a manner that requires and merits a more technical response I shall be happy to oblige. Until then, not so much.
No, you do not understand evolution. Not at all. Information is not 'lost' like my wife's keys. Changes in allele frequency occur due to the expression of a gene over generations. To call a fish loosing an eye devolution is to fundamentally misapprehend the process. From an anthropocentric view, I can see where you would want to call this devolution but, it's not. It's just evolution. Evolution is simply a process of adaptation.Was information on how to construct an eye lost? I think you know the answer is yes...that would be de-evolution.
Can we quit with the pettiness and just have a conversation. Grow up.in your post you said "I've been in the education field for decades. I pitch my level to suit my target audience."
Your intentions were to slight me by attacking my level of knowledge. A little dig.
To be honest I think you presented a variation of the coloring book description because that's all you have ever been taught.
There are even skeptic evolutionist. The Third way people seem to be skeptic about the Neo-Darwinists concept of evolutionism.Well, you asked "How's come skeptics aren't skeptical of evolution?", so I thought I'd chime in with an additional skeptic viewpoint. Yours wasn't a yes or no question.
Sorry! My bad!Well, you asked "How's come skeptics aren't skeptical of evolution?", so I thought I'd chime in with an additional skeptic viewpoint. Yours wasn't a yes or no question.
You seem to have quite failed to note that in describing my post as a "colouring book description" you were "slighting me by attacking my level of knowledge". I didn't go into a huff about this and make groundless accusations of argumentum ad hominem. I simply pointed out that until you demonstrated a deeper technical knowledge of evolutionary theory "colouring book descriptions" were what was appropriate.in your post you said "I've been in the education field for decades. I pitch my level to suit my target audience."
Your intentions were to slight me by attacking my level of knowledge. A little dig.
To be honest I think you presented a variation of the coloring book description because that's all you have ever been taught.
No, you do not understand evolution. Not at all. Information is not 'lost' like my wife's keys. Changes in allele frequency occur due to the expression of a gene over generations. To call a fish loosing an eye devolution is to fundamentally misapprehend the process. From an anthropocentric view, I can see where you would want to call this devolution but, it's not. It's just evolution. Evolution is simply a process of adaptation.
Can you explain how mutations add up?Can we quit with the pettiness and just have a conversation. Grow up.
The way i see it it's you evos who claim descent with modification is a sure thing. So, i've been asking how mutations add up. You know a little deeper than they occur and get naturally selected and added to the population. I call that the coloring book version.You seem to have quite failed to note that in describing my post as a "colouring book description" you were "slighting me by attacking my level of knowledge". I didn't go into a huff about this and make groundless accusations of argumentum ad hominem. I simply pointed out that until you demonstrated a deeper technical knowledge of evolutionary theory "colouring book descriptions" were what was appropriate.
Now let's stop this silly to and fro. If you have a sound technical objection to make, question to ask, assertion to propound then go ahead, in proper, relevant technical terms, devoid of flowery adjectives.
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?