R
rossum
Guest
What are you arguing about? The age of the earth? The evidence for macroevolution? The descent of humans from earlier hominids?
- Status
I
ImQuiet
Guest
Yeah, go learn some biology.
B
buffalo
Guest
From where?
I
ImQuiet
Guest
Good ol’ MIT has some courses.ImQuiet:
From where?
T
Techno2000
Guest
It’s a vague term evolutionist use to mean evolution can do it all.
F
Freddy
Guest
It’s worth a few minutes to browse that link to realise how many courses are being offered. Literally hundreds. And how many of those contradict the idea of a young earth. It is simply a gargantuan amount of science that you have to reject.
It’s not much of a stretch to say that you’d need very many years worth of specifically detailed education at degree level to even begin to know enough to even start making any suggestions that aparticular aspect of that particular branch of science wasn’t entirely correct. Let alone make an attempt to reject it in it’s entirety.
B
buffalo
Guest
I did not see an evolution course. I see something of interest - Biological Engineering.
F
Freddy
Guest
There were so many that I can’t blame you for missing them.Freddy:
I did not see an evolution course.
B
buffalo
Guest
Please link one.
F
Freddy
Guest
Hey, there’s only a few hundred courses that contradict your yec. Go find the ones concerned directly with evolution yourself.Freddy:
Please link one.
E
EndTimes
Guest
Natural Selection results in a loss of Biological Information.Noose001:
It’s a vague term evolutionist use to mean evolution can do it all.
All one needs is a smattering of Bio-Science to know and understand that…
F
Freddy
Guest
Natural selection means that you have an advantage in surviving. The very definition (by Darwin) explains this:Techno2000:
Natural Selection results in a loss of Biological Information.Noose001:
It’s a vague term evolutionist use to mean evolution can do it all.
“But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.”
It seems that you consider changes that offer ‘the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life’ a loss.
I don’t think you meant ‘natural selection’. Maybe you were thinking about something else.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
Not necessarily any more than what preceded a natural selection event =
Natural Selection is a loss in Bio-Info - ie., a micro-devolution.
Which in a very few incidents - such as a Malarial Parasite - to certain medicines
can result in a temporary advantage over one medicine - but never any and all.
Evolution preaches a gain in New Bio-Info
Ergo - a Series of Natural Selections can never lead to a new and improved being aka Macro-Evolution
F
Freddy
Guest
So an advantage in surviving is a backward step. OK, roger that, ET.Freddy:
Natural Selection is a loss in Bio-Info - ie., a micro-devolution.
Look, if you want to argue against evolution then you can’t change the definitions of the terms used within the theory. Natural selection, by it’s very definition, is a positive outcome.
Maybe we need an example to put you straight…
If a creature by some genetic hiccough gets slightly better vision than his peers, how on earth is that a disadvantage? In what Bizzaro world could that be described as a backward step?
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
That’s your spin. .
A loss of Bio-Info can not lead to Macro-Evolution
Over and Out, Case Closed,
F
Freddy
Guest
We crossed posts. See the example above re sight and explain how you think that’s a disadvantage.Freddy:
That’s your spin. .
A loss of Bio-Info can not lead to Macro-Evolution
Over and Out, Case Closed,
N
Noose001
Guest
Sorry but Darwin knew nothing about Genetics and his form of inheritance was a laughable theory of Pangenesis. Our current understanding of Hereditary science does not support evolution; the expression of dominant genes is not affected by external forces.
E
EndTimes
Guest
“Backward Step” is your spin…
Natural Selection is as a slight loss within the averaged Genome of a population…
No ‘better vision’ came about via a loss in the BioInfo of a Genome.
Sounds as if you’re positing a speculated Mutation event?
F
Freddy
Guest
Yeah. Nobody bred cattle or sheep or dogs in Darwins day. Nobody noticed that tall parents had tall offspring. Nobody had the slightest idea that characteristics were inheritable.Freddy:
Sorry but Darwin knew nothing about Genetics and his form of inheritance was a laughable theory of Pangenesis.
Are you being serious here? He definitley didn’t know how it occured. And he didn’t need to. But the fact that it occured, which was known to anyone with eyes in their head, was the very basis for his theory. Any suggestion he made as to ‘units of inherritance’ or such like as an explanation for aquiring characteristics of the parent is entirely inconsequential to the fact that it does happen.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
Like I said, it wasn’t natural selection you were talking about. So your position is that there has never been a case where there has been an improvement in the ability to survive in any living creature at all, anywhere.Freddy:
“Backward Step” is your spin…
Natural Selection is as a slight loss within the averaged Genome of a population…
No ‘better vision’ came about via a loss in the BioInfo of a Genome.
Sounds as if you’re positing a speculated Mutation event?
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
- Status