It would be better to ask a frog about origin issues.Once again, you are projecting. You are the one who does this, not me.
Non sequitur. You do not understand how science works.
Projecting again.
That's the worst attempt at a meaningless answer I've ever seen. Your idea can't explain anything.
My position is that science uses a basis for which it has no evidence for origins models.I'm going to start keeping count.
This is the first post since I've started keeping count in which you have failed to provide a shred of evidence for your position.
That's nice.This is the second post since I've started keeping count in which you have failed to provide a shred of evidence for your position.
That's nice.
You can't defend your religious views but at least you can count!
Try to focus here, science must be defended. That IS my position. When science uses a same nature in the past for it's models, we need to have a look at what evidences there is for this foundation.That's nice.
You can't provide evidence, but at least you can resort to childish responses.
This is the third post since I've started keeping count in which you have failed to provide a shred of evidence for your position.
Try to focus here, science must be defended. That IS my position. When science uses a same nature in the past for it's models, we need to have a look at what evidences there is for this foundation.
You cannot defeat it as you have proven so very often. So you...count.
Why blame me if you can't admit science is a religion and based on beliefs that you cannot begin to defend?This is the fourth post since I've started keeping count in which you have failed to provide a shred of evidence for your position.
by removing parts from both living\non-living things the system stop working. so by definition both are ic systems.Prove it.
say that we want to add a new system to existing creature. how we will do it by small steps? think about it: a motion system for instance need at least s everal parts to be functional. say that we want to add a system that cna make a creature to move. it cant be done stepwise. we will need at least s veral parts. right?Ah, OK. It sounds like what you really mean is that you can't see how stepwise evolution could give rise to creatures that need several parts to function. If you'd have asked about this at the start, we could have avoided a lot of wasted time and posts.
The key concept here is the evolution of multicellularity - this occurred in conditions where undifferentiated clumps of cells were more successful in survival and reproduction than single cells (clumping could be a result of a change to the cell membrane that made cells more likely to stick together after division).
The major advantage of multicellularity is functional specialisation through differentiation - cells becoming specialised for certain roles makes for more efficiency overall.
Here's a hypothetical: suppose a cell in the clump of cells has a mutation that causes it to produce a protein that makes food particles stick to its surface, or an enzyme that makes it easier to absorb food particles; that would be an advantage, so that trait would be likely to spread - a clump whose cells all had the new gene would have a huge advantage. Such a clump could absorb more food and grow bigger than the others, but its size would be limited because cells too far from the surface would be starved of energy from nutrients, especially as they would also be expending energy producing this protein that was only effective at the surface.
So there would be a selection pressure for the cells to develop differently at or near the surface vs inside the clump, so the cells inside the clump didn't waste energy producing this protein. Suppose a mechanism evolves (a regulator gene) that can suppress a gene if the concentration of some other chemical in the vicinity is high. Inside the clump, where all the cells are surrounded on all sides by other cells, the concentration of the various chemicals they produce is higher than on the surface, where those chemicals are constantly washed away; so it won't be long (in evolutionary terms) before the novel food gene in the cells inside the clump is suppressed by the regulator gene, which gives them an advantage - more energy, so they can grow larger, or whatever.
Now the inside cells have become functionally different from the surface cells, and this difference continues to increase, as the regulator evolves to become able to effectively switch whole segments of the genome on or off - the outside cells become specialised for food absorption and protection, and the inside cells specialise in converting the nutrients to products that all the cells need. The surface cells stop wasting energy making products the inside cells can make for them, and the inside cells, protected and supplied with nutrients, become increasingly fragile and unable to engulf food for themselves. The two types of cells work together far more effectively than the original single cells, but neither can survive alone.
That is a simple form of stepwise evolution of functionally separate but co-dependent parts.
The gene regulator mechanism which activates or suppresses genes according to chemical gradients that indicate where the cell is in the organism, is a key development - it gets copied, modified, extended, and eventually becomes part of a complex cascade of regulation that controls gene expression to enable the organisms to evolve advantageous shapes by distinguishing axial (anterior-posterior), lateral (left-right), and dorsal-ventral axes, and to produce consistent proximal-distal limb development.
That was just a hypothetical example, far too simple to be real; but it's an echo of what did happen early in evolution - similar gene regulators have been found in all bilaterians, they're known as Hox genes, and they are almost identical in all creatures - there's no significant difference between fruit fly Hox genes and human Hox genes, and if you replace a fly Hox gene with a chicken Hox gene, it will develop normally. Mess with the Hox genes or the chemicals that trigger them, and you'll mess up the creature's body plan, cause it to grow limbs in the wrong place, etc.
If you're trying to make an argument about non-living things there is no reason to assume that the same argument equally applies to living things.
this is the problem because there is such a reason: by removing parts from both systems they stop to function. so be definition both are ic systems.
Why blame me if you can't admit science is a religion and based on beliefs that you cannot begin to defend?
My beliefs are not on trial here, those of science are.
The thread is about how evolution is not science. That is true, the only aspects of evolution that are science are those aspects that happen (in the way of evolving) here in the present time. All the hocus pocus skulldudgery and slimy claims about how evolution is responsible for life on earth are bogus. All the beliefs foisted on old fossils or skulls that claim to be science are delinquent dreaming and fraud.
They have no idea what the fossil record really is all about! They have taken it as some sort of supposed representation of what creatures/life existed in the past.
As I look at the fossil record, I see a record of those creatures that could fossilize in the former nature. Not as a record of most life at any particular period. I do not believe the vast majority of animals, fish or man or birds even could leave fossil remains in that former nature.
Science uses this present nature and looks at how things would leave remains here. They try to impose that onto the past. They have no idea what nature was like and if man, for example in the former times decayed away, or was disposed of by nature's recycle methods and creatures too fast to be able to leave fossilized remains. So it is not science to claim what they do not know about. Their claims about the fossil record amount to beliefs that nature was the same! Nothing more. So the theory of evoluton of life is NOT science. Looking at how bacteria or creatures slowly evolve a bit in the present IS science!
As always we must get a crowbar and break away origin fables from what is called science or knowledge.
But feel free to keep counting, it brings levity I guess.
I would suggest my understanding is not the problem is whatever you posted long ago that you thought was something special.I have defended it. The fact that you lack the ability to understand science is not an argument against it.
You have your beliefs. I have mine. The facts of creation are not subject to your beliefs, however. Try to remember your religion is not the only one in the world.You keep pushing your beliefs as fact. I am not going to accept them unless you can provide evidence to support them.
So why do the fossils we have look just like they formed in present state conditions if they formed in a different state?
Just because some creatures that lived and could fossilize resemble some creatures today, does not mean that all the other animals that also lived at that time, and could not fossilize resembled them too.Then why do we see so many forms similar to ones we have today?
We have been in this nature probably since around the KT layer. Looking at fossils before this, I seem to notice many creatures used to exist that do not match what we have today!And if it all happened in a different state, why does it match so exactly with what we would expect if it happened in the same state?
Says the person who doesn't even realize the myth books she imbibes are mythology!Says the person who literally follows a book of mythology.
Good counting.And this is the fifth post in which you have asked us to accept your claim of a different state past while not providing a shred of evidence to support it.
I would suggest my understanding is not the problem is whatever you posted long ago that you thought was something special.
You have your beliefs. I have mine. The facts of creation are not subject to your beliefs, however. Try to remember your religion is not the only one in the world.
How would you expect this dino to look regardless of what nature was like?
Just because some creatures that lived and could fossilize resemble some creatures today, does not mean that all the other animals that also lived at that time, and could not fossilize resembled them too.
We have been in this nature probably since around the KT layer. Looking at fossils before this, I seem to notice many creatures used to exist that do not match what we have today!
Says the person who doesn't even realize the myth books she imbibes are mythology!
Good counting. Have an ice cream.
We understand the evidence you post, and all the evidence you cannot and do not post.Once again, classic projection.
And your understanding (or lack thereof) certainly is a problem when it prevents you from understanding the evidence that others put forward to show why they are right and you are wrong.
There are other religions and beliefs besides your own. The fact you feel insulted by merely having it pointed out you do have only beliefs is telling."Your beliefs are a religion!" says the guy trying to insult my position by claiming it is a religion, not comprehending the irony of using religion as an insult when he is a Christian.
In other words you don't know. There is no reason to think Adam or Noah looked like ants or guinea pigs.Well, for a start, what if gravity in the past state was different. Let's say it was much weaker. it could have survived with much thinner legs. And yet it doesn't have any. Or maybe gravity was much stronger, in which case it would have even thicker legs. Or maybe its bones were denser, in which case we could look at the microscopic structure of the bones and see that.
But no. When we look at the fossil, it shows every sign that the structure is very similar to the bones we have today, and when we calculate what kind of gravity a creature with bones this size and this density could tolerate, we find that it matches very well with what the modern force of gravity is.
So why would all the animals that lived back then in a different state resemble the animals in today's state?
Not at all. The animals in the fossil record that exist pre KT were probably living in the former nature however they looked. They could adapt and evolve fast so they can look differently in different conditions! The important factor in the fossil record is that most creatures and man simply probably could not leave fossil remains at all. So the fossil record of early life is not reflective in any way of life on earth in general!Your argument here was literally, "The animals back then that could fossilize looked like the ones we have in the present state. The ones back then that COULDN'T fossilize probably also looked like the ones we have in the present state. Therefore it is likely that there was a DIFFERENT state."
And there were also many animals that match quite well what we have today. Sharks, crocodiles, spiders, crabs, fish, birds... Why would they be so similar if the laws of nature were so different?
Less actually. Origin so called science is demonic fables.Science is mythology now, is it?
We understand the evidence you post, and all the evidence you cannot and do not post.
There are other religions and beliefs besides your own. The fact you feel insulted by merely having it pointed out you do have only beliefs is telling.
In other words you don't know. There is no reason to think Adam or Noah looked like ants or guinea pigs.
Actually let's see the calculations? By the way, did you think a different nature means some weird extreme gravity?
We may also look at some of the huge birds that lived, that seem quite unfitted to the current nature!
There are few animals in the record before the KT. No lions, no man, etc etc etc. So we have nothing to compare it too.
The dinos look nothing like creatures we have today, nor do the big birds etc. It makes sense that in a former nature where rapid evolving was normal that we would have seen created kind animals adapt and change. It also makes sense that as the world changed a lot after the flood, a lot of evolving would go on.
For creatures like flatworms that were very similar in early creation to how they are today, that is evidence that the theory of evolution is wrong.
Not at all. The animals in the fossil record that exist pre KT were probably living in the former nature however they looked. They could adapt and evolve fast so they can look differently in different conditions!
The important factor in the fossil record is that most creatures and man simply probably could not leave fossil remains at all. So the fossil record of early life is not reflective in any way of life on earth in general!
Also, modern birds appeared in the fossil record after the KT! So not sure what you mean about how birds matched what we have today?
Less actually. Origin so called science is demonic fables.
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?