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.
what we appear to see is the theory of evolution actually evolves to stay in existence but i am not sure if that in itself is proof of it's own theory.
no i mean more like reinvention for reinventions sake.
99% of what we know about evolution is testable.
Theories about past events are not testable and
are based on conjecture and are fictional stories.
So you are under the impression that when DNA was described and discussed as the mechanism of heredity and the site of mutations . . . this was done just because somebody thought it was time to make evolution theory a little bit fancier? Instead of, say, merely reporting what was really there?
no what i said what was evolution has become evolution plus to survive.
we share common dna with many species, oddly to me this points more to a common designer.
no what i said what was evolution has become evolution plus to survive.
we share common dna with many species, oddly to me this points more to a common designer.
A common designer could put feathers on a few mammals. A common designer could put placentas on a few birds. A common designer could put teeth on a few penguins. Teeth are reserved for the seals, chasing the same prey. A common designer could put hollow bones with associated counter current respiration going through them (just like that of birds) in a few bats.
But we observe a nested hierarchy of such traits. Oddly the common designer made it look like things evolved, with characteristics following a consistent "tree of life" pattern.
Perhaps He wanted us to realize He used evolution!
what if the common designer set it up to develope but every type according to its kind?
that's why we see only changes within given parameters.
what if the common designer set it up to develope but every type according to its kind?
no what i said what was evolution has become evolution plus to survive.
we share common dna with many species, oddly to me this points more to a common designer.
what if the common designer set it up to develope but every type according to its kind?
that's why we see only changes within given parameters.
Try to get your head around this: If the universe was designed, then everything was designed and there is nothing that is not designed. So there would be no need for the word "design" because all you would need would be the word "real". And if there were a "designer" he must have flunked engineering, to have designed the recurrent laryngeal nerve, or the vertebrate eye. And the vermiform appendix: What is that all about? We get along fine without it, and the only time it does anything at all is when it becomes infected and tries to kill us.we share common dna with many species, oddly to me this points more to a common designer.
On the contrary, the fossil record supports evolution, in detail, across two dozen phyla, hundreds of classes, and tens of thousands of genera. Clearly you have not studied the fossil evidence, in the field, in the lab and in the literature. I have. You are talking nonsense.darwin himself said the fossil record will either prove it true or false and when it showed false they come up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium to rebalance the lack.
Try to get your head around this: If the universe was designed, then everything was designed and there is nothing that is not designed. So there would be no need for the word "design" because all you would need would be the word "real". And if there were a "designer" he must have flunked engineering, to have designed the recurrent laryngeal nerve, or the vertebrate eye. And the vermiform appendix: What is that all about? We get along fine without it, and the only time it does anything at all is when it becomes infected and tries to kill us.
When you see design everywhere, you are seeing only what you want to see. Anything that conflicts with your holy book is screened out or excused away.
On the contrary, the fossil record supports evolution, in detail, across two dozen phyla, hundreds of classes, and tens of thousands of genera. Clearly you have not studied the fossil evidence, in the field, in the lab and in the literature. I have. You are talking nonsense.
Most people have not studied the subject and are woefully ignorant of how much has been discovered. Now that I have alerted to you the fact that you are one of these will you be taking the opportunity to properly inform yourself?Odd, most people think the fossil records are woefully inadequate, .
It is the wealth of data available from the fossil record that led Eldridge and Gould to propose punctuated equilibrium, a concept that is not universally accepted as a viable secondary modification of basic evolutionary theory.again why the need for punctuated equilibrium if the fossil record is so intact?
I suspect you think that sentence actually makes sense. We have a number of links between the common ancestor of apes and men. (A sentence I have a lexical problem with, since we are apes.) What makes you think we don't, other than creationist propaganda?I also wonder why for so long there was a mad rush to find the missing link between man and ape, then after it so embarrassingly being absent, apparent for the odd hoax, we find there isn't a link at all but we do have common ancestry, that could be considered fortunate for science.
You talk of balances as if that were some mystery. Equilibria are very common in chemistry, physics, biology, geology, and thermodynamics, and are quite well understood.I noticed you looked over all the countless wonders and balances at a few things that don't yet seem apparent, perhaps one day we will find how important some of the seemingly useless things are.
You thought, if that is the word for it, wrong. Water, flowing through a pile of rock detritus, will sort that detritus into boulders, cobbles, pebbles, gravel, sand, and silt. In short, it is quite common for order to arise as energy flows from a higher state to a lower state. This you would know were you not so unobservant.So you are sticking with the idea that everything was just a series of accidents, controlled accidents and events, I thought things left to there own devices tend towards chaos not order.
There is work being done in both areas, but we may never have a complete picture of events so distant in time. Still, It's not what you don't know that kills you, it's what you know for sure that ain't true. (― Mark Twain) If we had depended solely on preachers, prophets and prayers, we would still be crouching in leaf huts.Any idea how life actually started yet or how the universe formed?
I noticed you looked over all the countless wonders and balances at a few things that don't yet seem apparent, perhaps one day we will find how important some of the seemingly useless things are.
You talk of balances as if that were some mystery. Equilibria are very common in chemistry, physics, biology, geology, and thermodynamics, and are quite well understood.
You thought, if that is the word for it, wrong. Water, flowing through a pile of rock detritus, will sort that detritus into boulders, cobbles, pebbles, gravel, sand, and silt. In short, it is quite common for order to arise as energy flows from a higher state to a lower state. This you would know were you not so unobservant.
There is work being done in both areas, but we may never have a complete picture of events so distant in time. Still, It's not what you don't know that kills you, it's what you know for sure that ain't true. (― Mark Twain) If we had depended solely on preachers, prophets and prayers, we would still be crouching in leaf huts.
Science works. Religion doesn't. As Edith Ann would remark, "... and that's the truth."
"wonders?" How exactly does one determine what is or isn't a "wonder"?
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?