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 only problem is, it's been noted as late as 1980 by eldridge that the fossil record show that there are very few, some would say no, examples of "gradual shading".The word 'evolve' has slightly different meanings in different contexts - in a general context it just means 'to develop gradually' (in chemistry it means 'to give off', e.g. gas, heat).
kimura and others has shown natural selection has no effect on the vast number of organisms, and is not the dominate force of evolution.In the biological sciences it is used as a shorthand for the genetic changes in living populations - as explained by Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (TOE).
The speed of gravity, the idea that gravity has a speed is just not how I picture it. It's not so much as I doubt it as that I have difficulty even grasping the concept.What are some topics for which you have found scientific explanations to be unsatisfactory?
The two are never separated. In fact, abiogenesis is taught as a subtopic of the ToE.
The only people who wish to remain blindfolded insist the topics are separated. They are not.
So how do you explain the existence of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_05
http://www.astrobio.net/
?
You seem blind to the fact, that TOE does not discuss origins.
You seem blind to the fact, that TOE does not discuss origins.
Perhaps because I attended school.
Studying the origin of life - Understanding Evolution
The Origin and Evolution of Life on Earth
The Origin and Evolution of Life - NJCU
Towards an evolutionary theory of the origin of life based on kinetics and thermodynamics
Origin and Evolution of Life on Planet Earth
Please educate us, in your own words, why the TOE, needs to understand the origin of life.
And the TOE works just fine, without knowing the origins of life.
How could that be?
You tell me the dividing line, you are the one saying the TOE needs to include the origins of life.
That's only to be expected, given the timescales involved, how rarely fossilization occurs, and that fossils (with rare exceptions) only preserve skeletal structure. If you have 10 snapshots of someone, taken at random intervals over their whole life, you're unlikely to see many examples, if any, of 'gradual shading' in their changing appearance.the only problem is, it's been noted as late as 1980 by eldridge that the fossil record show that there are very few, some would say no, examples of "gradual shading".
I very much doubt that - but give me the reference or a link to it, and I'll have a look.kimura and others has shown natural selection has no effect on the vast number of organisms, and is not the dominate force of evolution.
Yes its, "all nature", but the mechanisms are different, obviously.There is no such dividing line. Nature and science are active equally and the same for both topics.
what do you think evolution is?That's only to be expected, given the timescales involved, how rarely fossilization occurs, and that fossils (with rare exceptions) only preserve skeletal structure. If you have 10 snapshots of someone, taken at random intervals over their whole life, you're unlikely to see many examples, if any, of 'gradual shading' in their changing appearance.
I very much doubt that - but give me the reference or a link to it, and I'll have a look.
E.T.A. - OK, I checked Kimura's work - the Neutral Theory of Evolution. You've misconstrued it - he's suggesting that most evolutionary changes and variation between species at a molecular level are caused by neutral genetic drift rather than natural selection. BUT - 'According to Kimura, the theory applies only for evolution at the molecular level, and phenotypic evolution is controlled by natural selection, as postulated by Charles Darwin'[wikipedia]
Phenotypic evolution is changes to body shape, size, and structure, i.e. not molecular changes. So what he's suggesting is a modification to the current theory, but only applying at a molecular level.
I can't speak for hypothetical aliens - you seem to know them better than I; it might not be intuitively obvious from a superficial explanation - it's a simple principle with profound implications over geological time, but I expect that if he had access to the available evidence, a little study should convince him that it's possible, and it happened. Alternatively, a technologically competent alien might run a simple computer simulation and discover the power of replication with heritable variation and selection.
But would not that alien observe only the same things we observe here on earth if looking at earth?
So it would observe Asian mating with Asian producing Asian. African mating with African producing only African. Yet when Asian mated with African an Afro-Asian (variation) would appear suddenly in the record, with no missing links between any. And the Asian would still be an Asian and the African an African - neither evolved into the Afro-Asian.
So it would observe Husky mating with Husky producing Husky. Mastiff mating with Mastiff producing only Mastiff. Yet when Husky mated with Mastiff a Chinook (variation) would appear suddenly in the record, with no missing links between any. And the Husky would still be a Husky and the Mastiff a Mastiff - neither evolved into the Chinook.
The alien would then come to the logical conclusion that none of them evolved into anything new - and that claims it happened that way in the past was falsified by direct empirical evidence.
The alien would logically conclude there was no evolution. That it always takes two, and so male and female created He them. Just as the alien logically concluded no evolution from viewing how life propagated on it's planet.
One of the biggest creationist red herrings going. Not as though there aren't enough of them.
...because we both know not a single evolutionist here can promote evolution without ignoring direct empirical evidence.
One could only hope that the alien was intelligent enough to realise that cross-breeding of varieties within species is not evolution by natural selection...But would not that alien observe only the same things we observe here on earth if looking at earth?
...
So it would observe Husky mating with Husky producing Husky. Mastiff mating with Mastiff producing only Mastiff. Yet when Husky mated with Mastiff a Chinook (variation) would appear suddenly in the record, with no missing links between any. And the Husky would still be a Husky and the Mastiff a Mastiff - neither evolved into the Chinook.
The alien would then come to the logical conclusion that none of them evolved into anything new - and that claims it happened that way in the past was falsified by direct empirical evidence.
The alien would logically conclude there was no evolution. That it always takes two, and so male and female created He them. Just as the alien logically concluded no evolution from viewing how life propagated on it's planet.
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?