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.
This was already explained by sfs in #462:but speciation isnt evolution. its just a variation.
Because it's not just a variation, it's a particular kind of variation. We call that particular kind of variation "evolution". We don't call other kinds of variation "evolution". Using different words for different things helps us keep track of them. That's how language works.
lets check it. as you can remember from the last time i showed you something like this image:Why is it an issue? Common descent is a reasonable inference from (the evolutionary mechanism of speciation). Special creation is not. There is no evidence of special creation, no reason to believe in it. If it turns out to be true then eventually there will be evidence found for it, I suppose, but in the meantime common descent remains the best working hypothesis. So what?
Yes they are. And they were created that way. There are no transitional fossils. No evidence of a common ancestor and no observation of anything as proposed occurring. All things remain in their same group no matter what the changes may occur due to micro changes.
What is the world does that have to do with whether God created the present diversity of life starting with a single self- replicating life form or from a number of creatures? Have you forgotten what the point of your argument was?lets check it. as you can remember from the last time i showed you something like this image:
(image from Word HELP on beach sand stock image. Image of lvoe, letters - 1286583)
you said that we cant prove design by looking at this. right?
Until it is proven through scientific experimentation it is a theory. If one can't come up with an experiment to prove or disprove it, it is an hypothesis. The key is that they didn't "prove" mutation took place. Rather, they concluded that it "almost certainly" must have.
Scientific rules are really, absurdly simple. If you don't follow them, what you are doing may be really cool and useful (like a lot of stuff Tesla did), but if you don't follow the scientific method, it's not science.
if they are able to reproduce with variation, why not?
Yes. I simply thing they are ignoring HOW populations evolve. They evolve via changes in individuals. That is, if real biological "evolution" is taking place within a population, a subsequent generation from a single set of parents will have a difference from the parents that the parents don't have. Of course, it's far more complex than that, but you get my drift.
so you consider any such variation as evolution. but again: its just a variation, so why call it evolution?
Opinions may vary, but on this issue only some of them reflect reality. Scientific experiments routinely incorporate measures of uncertainty into their reported results -- p-values, estimates of false positive and false negative rates, false discovery rate, confidence interval, likelihood ratios. Your suggestion that the scientific method routinely comes to certain, binary conclusions is contradicted by a central feature of actual scientific practice.Opinions vary.
If humans didn't come from apes, why have we found so many intermediate fossils?
And why is human DNA so close to chimp DNA, sharing things like the same mutation that disables vitamin C production?
To me it means humans and chimps are closely related.What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?
you said that there is no evidence for a special creation. so i want to show you otherwise.What is the world does that have to do with whether God created the present diversity of life starting with a single self- replicating life form or from a number of creatures? Have you forgotten what the point of your argument was?
Ding, ding, ding.To me it means humans and chimps are closely related.
What I meant is that you don't appear to understand the nature of science experiments. Science never concludes with absolute certainty as you ask. Rather it deals with conclusions that are probably true or almost certainly true. The expression I used in my reply, P< .005, is scientific shorthand to say that the probability that the conclusion is not true based on this experiment is less than .5%. And yet when science always deals with probabilities, and even has its own shorthand for quantifying this, you ask for certainty.Which ones?
i think he refer to a part of the genome :I heard that too. It was wrong.
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?