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.
yes, that does seem to be the case.There is an unspoken, unmerited, unprofessional, unscientific, and unmentionable opression on those who speak out against the theory of evolution.
see above for an example.Truth is being squashed in order to keep the theory of evolution on life support.
This means that there is no expectation of a nested hierarchy from a designer. Thanks for making my argument for me.
Yes, I did.
According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life. Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree.
If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion). Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
That is the evidence for a universal common ancestor, the shared features in all ife.
It is evidence for evolution through random mutations and selection.
my guess is science has already deemed it impossible.In my opinion evolution does not touch on the origins of life because it would prove evolution seriously flawed.
It's not about what you expect, it's about what the designer has in his design plan.
There's not a single solitary example in your post of starting with the first life form,
There is no evidence that random/chance mutations produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago.
yes, that does seem to be the case.
noble gives a fine example of this in regards to barbera mcclintock.
her work went against the established dogma of evolution.
she experienced so much scepticism (ridicule) that she quit publishing her work.
she wound up getting a nobel prize for her work 40 years after the fact because she was right.
see above for an example.
i disagree.The theory of evolution predicts what these bones should and shouldn't look like. Bones that fit the predictions made by the theory are evidence for that theory. The lack of bones that do not fit those predictions also helps confirm the theory.
i disagree.
given an organism and the future environment, evolution CANNOT tell you what that organism will become.
okay, that sounds more like it.The human genome contains about 3 Billion base pairs, so you're off by a few factors. (About 370Meg of data not counting addressing that's required by the system) and that's no where near the 700 terabytes of data mentioned.
one gram of which is almost 1.5TB, a far cry from 700.ETA I've got a 64Gig card and it only weights about 0.5 Grams.
okay, that sounds more like it.
still, 375MB is a lot of data to pack inside something we can't see with the unaided eye.
this alone almost screams design.
one other thing, DNA has built-in error correction.
it's a fact isn't it?And yet, this Nobel fellow, agrees that evolution happens and you still go on and on about this?????????????
it's a fact isn't it?
barbera was scorned for her work.
work that went against evolution.
they scorned her so much that she threw up her hands and quit.
and you don't call that a concerted effort???
she had the evidence, solid evidence, and look what they did to her.
i'm sorry, but that isn't the type of people i want to be associated with.
and it's still going on today.
i don't know, but she won a nobel prize for it.What evidence did McClintock have that changes in DNA sequence were non-random with respect to fitness?
i don't know, but she won a nobel prize for it.
40 years after the fact.
i don't know, but she won a nobel prize for it.What work done by McClintock went against evolution?
i don't know, but she won a nobel prize for it.
40 years after the fact.
if you knew this, then why was you asking if i knew?McClintock is famous for discovering transposons in maize. The only thing scientists were skeptical of is that certain genes could move about so easily. It wasn't considered a challenge to evolution.
if you knew this, then why was you asking if i knew?
she was scorned so much that she quit publishing her work.
now, why would they do that to her if it wasn't a challenge to evolution?
it went against their dogma, that's why.
Off topic, but the bible doesn't mention a 7 year peace deal.
uh, facts, not allegations.If you didn't know, then why did you make those allegations?
what exactly are you saying here?Why would it require a challenge to evolution in order for geneticists to be skeptical of someone's findings?
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?