I
ImQuiet
Guest
The irony here is delicious.
- Status
O
o_mlly
Guest
I believe the popes can be infallible on matters of faith and morals. On other matters, their authority is only as good as those of the expert sources who advise them.
S
StudentMI
Guest
So in other words you can’t address the statements beyond “the popes have bad advisors!”
O
o_mlly
Guest
Do you think the popes cannot have bad advisors?
B
buffalo
Guest
I am an IDvolution advocate.
B
buffalo
Guest
Microevolution aka adaptation explains a lot. I am in agreement with adaptation. I submit it has been front loaded.
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Mutation is the cause of change in an organism. And mutations are not dependant on a specific geographical location. But if a mutation has any benefits over another mutation is entirely dependant on the environment in which the mutation exists. See the difference?Freddy:
We aim to please, Fred. You’d like something positive, eh? OK. Here you go, I’ve got a couple for you.
First, as stated many times in this thread, I have no problem with microevolution.
Second, Fred agrees with Fr. Ripperger that the environment cannot be a cause in the evolution from a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans into the body of the first human being.
How am I doing so far?
Not to be a downer on your request to be positive but gotta correct you here:
Try diagramming your sentence. Awkward, isn’t it? First, the environment doesn’t cause change in organisms then changes in organisms result from changes in the environment. Fred, you can’t have it both ways in your chain of causation. I didn’t see either Rossum or Hume rush in to support your error in misinterpreting their posts so I guess they agree. ?
H
Hume
Guest
First, it survives where empirical evidence is considered more valuable than analytical “evidence”. This is, roughly, everywhere.
Second, evolution doesn’t have a worldview. It is espoused by folks of all religions.
Here you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic. Nothing is “on it’s way”. It’s simply what is at the time. We can’t predict what direction it will take as the events that provide the pressure are often random.
Tigers and lions haven’t fully, 100% speciated from each other yet as they can. But we consider them separate species nonetheless by other criteria.
Essentially, what you’re demanding is that I look at a grade, a continuum and try to divide it up into discrete sections.
Not. Possible.
You have points in the continuum, that’s it. It’s like asking me where the rainbow stops being blue and starts being indigo.
Didn’t happen that way. It went from protist-like critter to both plant and animal (fish). A line of fish became more amphibious. A line of those became more reptilian. A line of those became warm blooded and started growing fur. A line of those became primates. A line of those became people.
Plants and animals divided very early in the history of life. A plant did not become an animal.
We have literally tons of skeletons for you to observe that very thing. Seriously. Literally. Most emphatically.
So Rhinorex didn’t exist?
If denial is how you answer a particular dino skeleton, then it’s not hard to see why evolution obliterates YEC.
H
Hume
Guest
With no evidence. If they don’t have genes at the time to express their future selves, where do the changes come from?Hume:
Microevolution aka adaptation explains a lot. I am in agreement with adaptation. I submit it has been front loaded.
We evolutionist say random mutation. If mutation is already hidden in the DNA, then where?
I’m asking for the specific codons, please.
R
rossum
Guest
Please do. Specifically read about Eddington’s observations in 1919 which confirmed Einstein’s predictions. You will also read that Einstein was awarded a Nobel prize.
R
rossum
Guest
Translation: You have no idea what it does. There are a number of possible hypotheses such as reduction of the rate of deleterious mutations. If 50% of the genome does nothing then 50% of all mutations will have zero effect instead of a possible deleterious effect because they are in the “do nothing” part.
B
buffalo
Guest
That is like asking for the bit location of 1 byte on a hard drive. Yet we know that designed instruction sets can string together specific bits to perform tasks. And the same bits can be combined in different ways. The data on the hd cannot do anything without the instruction set.
T
Techno2000
Guest
How many beneficial mutation/environmental matchups do you think it took evolution to produce 10 million different plant and animals species we have today ?o_mlly:
Mutation is the cause of change in an organism. And mutations are not dependant on a specific geographical location. But if a mutation has any benefits over another mutation is entirely dependant on the environment in which the mutation exists. See the difference?Freddy:
We aim to please, Fred. You’d like something positive, eh? OK. Here you go, I’ve got a couple for you.
First, as stated many times in this thread, I have no problem with microevolution.
Second, Fred agrees with Fr. Ripperger that the environment cannot be a cause in the evolution from a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans into the body of the first human being.
How am I doing so far?
Not to be a downer on your request to be positive but gotta correct you here:
Try diagramming your sentence. Awkward, isn’t it? First, the environment doesn’t cause change in organisms then changes in organisms result from changes in the environment. Fred, you can’t have it both ways in your chain of causation. I didn’t see either Rossum or Hume rush in to support your error in misinterpreting their posts so I guess they agree. ?
F
Freddy
Guest
First up your misunderstanding of the effects of changes in the environment. Changes in the environment do not cause changes in the organism. So if it gets colder, a mammal doesn’t therefore grow a thicker fur coat. I know that’s how you think it works, but it doesn’t.First, as stated many times in this thread, I have no problem with microevolution.
How am I doing so far?
Freddy:
Try diagramming your sentence. Awkward, isn’t it? First, the environment doesn’t cause change in organisms then changes in organisms result from changes in the environment. Fred, you can’t have it both ways in your chain of causation.
Now it’s your turn to be positive and explain, against Ripperger’s argument, that the macroevolutionary claim that human beings who possess articulated speech evolved from animlas that did not possess articulated speech does not violate the PSR.
Back to you, Fred.
If a genetic glitch happens to give one animal a slightly thicker coat and it gets warmer then he’s at a disadvantage. Most genetic changes are detrimental. If the temp. doesn’t change then no big deal. But if it gets colder then he’s got a slight adavantge. So maybe he gets to live a little longer and pass on his genes (inlcluding the one for the thicker coat) to his descendants. One of whom, due to copying errors gets a slightly thicker coat yet again. Rinse and repeat.
What has happened is that a change to the genetic code has been the cause of the evolutionary beneficial step we have just seen. Not the environment. But the fact that the environment has gotten colder means that the result of that change in the environment means that the evolutionary change will endure.
This is evolution 101.
And we’d call that a microevolutionary change. Which you say stops at some indeterminate point. So I will ask again: What is this point. When does it occur? Why does it occur? How does the organism know when that point has been reached? What is the start point from which we start counting?
I’ve explained what causes these changes and why the changes become fixed in a given population. Now it’s up to you to tell us all why this doesn’t continue.
And articulated speech? A microevolutionary change. Nothing more. I think you and Ripperger both accept them. Don’t you?
As to ‘How am I doing so far?’ The less said the better, I think.
Last edited:
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
I have no idea. Evolutionary biology is so not my area of expertise.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Way too simplified , if it gets too cold his ecosystem dies too.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
F
Freddy
Guest
Every generation is now exactly like the previous one? Why wasn’t I told we’d reached a point of stasis? Who is responsible for keeping this under wraps? And how come you know but nobody else does?Freddy:
Nothing like that is happening now in the real world.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
You want me to explain the evolutionary process as it relates to an artichoke? Have we reached a point where your acceptance of evolution depends on me explaining the natural selection history of vegetables?
How low can we go…
T
Techno2000
Guest
Ok, now how do you apply this scenario to a plant like an artichoke or cauliflower ?
- Status