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.
It's not whether he remembers, it's more that he hopes we'd forget.Sigh. We discussed Lucy extensively a week or two ago. Please show how Lucy is a fraud or retract your claim.
Edit: Actually don't bother, you've just demonstrated that you are the one trying to deceive people by saying things like that when you know it's untrue. Do you not remember this thread?
You're now suggesting the general theory of relativity is related to the theory of evolution?That depends on which evolutionary theory you mean.
The general theory, or the Darwinist one.
But, ToE is the term used for Darwinism.
Meh, Lucy, Piltdown, it's all the same to someone who made his mind up before looking at the evidence.Lucy is not a forgery. Care to try again?
That's your choice, but it was aimed at the original poster, who may not have such a closed mind.
Funny, I thought that natural selection was, as the name implies, selecting from the best bits of each generation in order to pass onto the next and help the species survive. In other words, natural selection is not creating anything new but rather, it's filtering out/removing the parts that make a species less able to survive in its environment. The chance parts come into this when you consider where the best bits came from, which I understand to be mutations. Are you telling me that mutations aren't really a random/chance process?
Have you seen the DVD? If not, perhaps you should. You may find it quite enlightening.
Many other forgeries? Name ONE from the last 50 years, that was accepted as legit by the scientific community, then found to be fake. Just one. In fifty years. Shouldn't be tough, right?
Obviously, yes.
Mutations that survive anyhow are the cause of hereditary diseases.
Lucy is one of them.
Hmm, I thought evolution depended on mutations. How silly of me.Mutations are random. Evolution is not.
Oh yes, he's an expert at "Elephant hurtling" Does he ever listen to the drivel he comes out with at times?"We should all have an open mind. But not SO open that our brains fall out" - Professor Richard Dawkins
This is an over-simplification.If I have a bag of a billion dice and a selection filter that only lets 6's through, then it is not a "random result" to end up with only 6's. Eventhough every throw of the dice is random.
Random input + non-random filter = non-random output.
I've corrected you on this statement before. Some mutations cause hereditary disease. Most mutations don't have any effect. Some mutations cause beneficial traits. All of this is well understood by geneticists.Obviously, yes.
Mutations that survive anyhow are the cause of hereditary diseases.
An over-simplification, but basically correct -- unlike some of the things that creationists say about mutationsThis is an over-simplification.
Mutations exist. The changes to traits that they cause also exist. So we're good on this point.It would only work if the things you were trying to filter actually existed in the first place.
We're not doing the filtering. What's doing the filtering is the competition to survive and produce offspring. Mutations that increase survival and reproduction survive the filtering better. This is all easily observed in lab and in the wild.Since you have no idea what you are filtering for, you cannot obtain a non-random result.
I don't think the creation scientists would disagree with you on that point.We're not doing the filtering. What's doing the filtering is the competition to survive and produce offspring. Mutations that increase survival and reproduction survive the filtering better. This is all easily observed in lab and in the wild.
Yes you can. The thing being filtered for is "increased survival".This is an over-simplification.
It would only work if the things you were trying to filter actually existed in the first place. Since you have no idea what you are filtering for, you cannot obtain a non-random result.
natural selection acts upon those mutations and variations in traits, promoting those favorable to survival and reproduction, and decreasing those that aren't. This is why dominant genes that result in conditions that kill before the reproductive years tend to be especially rare.Hmm, I thought evolution depended on mutations. How silly of me.
Nothing can evolve into human.
This is an over-simplification.
It would only work if the things you were trying to filter actually existed in the first place.
Since you have no idea what you are filtering for, you cannot obtain a non-random result.
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?