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.
put the goalposts back.Micaiah said:Do you have any calculations to back up your claim to show that statistically the evolution of say the horse evolution could occur.
tacit? it was blatant. Did you even understand the argument he was presenting? Looks like you need a dictionary as well as a maths book now.A tacit admission that you did in fact pluck them out of the air. Thankyou.
I answer the question posed above with a resounding no. It appears that you do not understand what dannager was saying. way to go.The claim I make is that your numbers are misleading and that the rate of survival of a beneficial is so low that it is essentially irrelevant. That is because there are a number of other factors that can kill off an animal other than those things related to the phenotypic changes that improve and animals ability to run faster. Disease would be one example.
you seem totally unaware of simple mathematics. I suggest an elementary maths book and multiplication tables.You seem totally unaware of these important aspects of population genetics. I suggest you carry out further research.
Woah, woah, woah, I thought we were talking about impalas here. Where did horse evolution come from? Don't try and move those goalposts, Micaiah. I gave you some illustrative numbers on impala selection. Let's stick to the subject, shall we?Micaiah said:Do you have any calculations to back up your claim to show that statistically the evolution of say the horse evolution could occur.
I wouldn't call that an admission - you were the one who missed the fact that I declared them as "plucked out of the air" to begin with. Care to admit to that? Again, if you've got a problem with the individual numbers, speak up. We're listening.A tacit admission that you did in fact pluck them out of the air. Thankyou.
Which ones? I haven't seen you point out any criticisms yet. In fact, I already did some of your work for you - and showed you how changing the numbers would not work out in your argument's favor. In the off chance that you were planning on objecting to any of them, I saved you the embarrassment.The claim I make is that your numbers are misleading
It doesn't matter how low it is. It only matters that it is higher than the rate of survival of a detrimental mutation - and it is higher. That is certainly not irrelevant.and that the rate of survival of a beneficial is so low that it is essentially irrelevant.
And yet there remain things that can kill off an animal that are reliant on those very changes. Even if one animal is killed due to a detrimental gene or even if one animal survives because of a beneficial gene, the chance of the population's genes improving rises. That was your point, was it not?That is because there are a number of other factors that can kill off an animal other than those things related to the phenotypic changes that improve and animals ability to run faster.
I'd rather stick with impalas and running for right now. Besides, you don't want to go into disease - your argument would be butchered. We'll get into disease when we're good and finished with impalas and running.Disease would be one example.
I'll ignore this as I'm sure you'll retract it given that your argument has been handed back to you in pieces.You seem totally unaware of these important aspects of population genetics. I suggest you carry out further research.
I'm afraid we've got more important things to deal with right now than this post, LittleNipper. We'll get back to you eventually, I'm sure.LittleNipper said:The Bible discusses the truth. GOD's truth is not subjective, it is definitive. Evolution does not consider GOD. Christians know that GOD must be considered in ALL things and above all things..
Dannager said:I'm afraid we've got more important things to deal with right now than this post, LittleNipper. We'll get back to you eventually, I'm sure.
LittleNipper said:Actually, you will one day realize that nothing is more important that GOD.
LittleNipper said:Christian's know that GOD must be considered in ALL things.
And one day you will realize that you are not God and thus your posts do not warrant the same level of attention. Apparently today is not that day, though. Now, back to Micaiah.LittleNipper said:Actually, you will one day realize that nothing is more important that GOD.
LittleNipper said:Actually, you will one day realize that nothing is more important that GOD.
LittleNipper said:The Bible discusses the truth. GOD's truth is not subjective, it is definitive.
Evolution does not consider GOD.
Christians know that GOD must be considered in ALL things and above all things..
caravelair said:if it's not subjective, why are there such a large variety of different interpretations of scripture? sounds subjective to me.
neither does any theory in all of science. it is not possible for science to consider the supernatural. such things are untestable.
christian scientists know that god cannot be tested via science, and thus cannot be a part of any theory that science can consider.
Okay.Dannager said:They can have offspring that are a half second slower, but that happening is less likely with a faster impala than it would be were the slower impala reproducing. Evolution is about probabilities, shinbits.
.
And I'm not here, I suppose?Micaiah said:As you say LittleNipper, God is the most important Person. It is good to hear from someone else who truly believes that.
shinbits said:Okay.
On this particular, aspect of mutations, I'll just ask one more question, and I guess we can move on.
As far as studies that have shown that animals have gradually increased performance over time, are there any you can think of and post a link for?
shinbits said:On this particular, aspect of mutations, I'll just ask one more question, and I guess we can move on.
As far as studies that have shown that animals have gradually increased performance over time, are there any you can think of and post a link for?
Micaiah said:Yes, back to the topic at hand. I'd also like to see a study that showed how over the last 200 years the averege speed of the impala increased by 'x' percent.
I'd also like a discussion on the probability of an impala population evolving.
Man, what? What the heck is wrong with you? You seriously think you need a study on impala speed to evidence this argument? It was illustrative. Any evidence of improvement over time would be enough to refute your position.Micaiah said:Yes, back to the topic at hand. I'd also like to see a study that showed how over the last 200 years the averege speed of the impala increased by 'x' percent.
Isn't that what we were having? How about continuing it? There was a lot in my post, I'm sure you can either find something to respond to or offer a retraction on your own position.I'd also like a discussion on the probability of an impala population evolving.
Dannager said:Man, what? What the heck is wrong with you?
Okay… although I have no explicit studies on impala speed you should be able to pull together what you have learned so far to understand the bigger picture.shinbits said:Furthermore, there has been nothing to show that these animals run any faster then they have in prior generations; this would give weight to the theory if there was, because it would show that natural selection is indeed phasing out the weaker traits.
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?