Has science falsified macroevolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orogeny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Orogeny said:
So which is it reggie? Am I lying about being a Catholic or just an athiestic liar?
Click to expand...
It was a pretty simple formula to observe and I don’t know the answer. Either you believe what you wrote and therefore are not a Catholic, or you don’t believe it and are therefore spreading lies. You should note that if you’re merely a liar this does not necessarily mean that you’re atheistic.

There is a third option that I failed to mention - that you’re trying to be humorous by spreading falsehoods under the guise of sarcasm.

In any case, it was a pretty weak post and not worth this much time spent on it already.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
You do all know the horizontal gene transfer only occurs at the very bottom of the “tree”. The “tree of life” is still very applicable to hominid evolution.
Click to expand...
HGT is not the only factor that confused the Tree of Life. The original version is based on fossil similarities but that was falsified wherever DNA analysis showed that similarities in body forms do not indicate ancestry.
 
reggieM said:
I will put Tim on ignore from henceforth. That should help.

Tim – I just put you on ignore so I won’t be able to read your posts any more.
Click to expand...
Then the discussion ends. That is not a good thing.
 
reggieM said:
HGT is not the only factor that confused the Tree of Life. The original version is based on fossil similarities but that was falsified wherever DNA analysis showed that similarities in body forms do not indicate ancestry.
Click to expand...
In addition photosensitive bacteria are found in five different phyla meaning that they evolved separately five different times! :hmmm:

One other area that seems to go against natural selection and random mutation is that bacteria are demonstrating that they are biased towards losing DNA as they reproduce. This bias is non-random.
Deletional bias and the evolution of bacterial genomes.
 
buffalo said:
In addition photosensitive bacteria are found in five different phyla meaning that they evolved separately five different times! :hmmm:

One other area that seems to go against natural selection and random mutation is that bacteria are demonstrating that they are biased towards losing DNA as they reproduce. This bias is non-random.
Deletional bias and the evolution of bacterial genomes.
Click to expand...
Why is it only creationists see it that way? Why can’t any Catholic scientists see that? Why, if evolution is so patently false, is it accepted by faithful biologists the world over?

Are they stupid? Are they afraid of their funding? What?

How does that which you posted falsify macroevolution?

Peace

Tim
 
buffalo said:
Then the discussion ends. That is not a good thing.
Click to expand...
Once he accused me of lying (again), he signaled that he didn’t want a discussion. It has happened before.

You have seen how many times my faith has been questioned by people like reggie. I’m used to it.

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
Why is it only creationists see it that way? Why can’t any Catholic scientists see that? Why, if evolution is so patently false, is it accepted by faithful biologists the world over?

Are they stupid? Are they afraid of their funding? What?
Click to expand...
I have no good answer Tim.
 
buffalo said:
Then the discussion ends. That is not a good thing.
Click to expand...
That is a good point. I find it very difficult to discuss matters with Tim. He’s passionate about this topic and that’s good. Unfortunately, I perceive a personality clash with him. At the same time, I shouldn’t just avoid him on that basis.

Tim – I took you off ignore. Sorry about that, it was a rash decision on my part.

No offense intended and I hope none received by it.
 
buffalo said:
Well, as you know the source of the word is from Genesis. So there is a meaning of this that we do not yet fully grasp.

A few possibilities -

Basic Functional systems
Morphological characteristics
First created distinguishable sources of all living things

Perhaps all of the above.

I suppose the ECF’s should not have used the word trinity either. 😦

Of course we can consult the dictionary:

Kind–noun 1. a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: Our dog is the same kind as theirs. 2. nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things: These differ in degree rather than in kind.
Click to expand...
So you don’t have a definition. Therefore any reference you make to “kind” is irrelevant.
 
Orogeny said:
Gould and Elderidge did not accept the slow, continuous pace of evolution commonly accepted by biologists. That is where punctuated equilibrium came from. I don’t know how McCarthy’s hypothesis differs from PE. Perhaps you can explain the difference since I really have no desire to read an e-book.

Speaking of his e-book, if he wants to get anywhere with his hypothesis, an e-book won’t do it in the world of science. He will need to publish articles and present his ideas at conferences.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
The following is provided by the author as a summary of his findings:

"But the main points of this new theory, known as stabilization theory, can be summarized here. It asserts that
Code: 
 1) The typical new life form treated as a species comes into being abruptly and remains largely the same thereafter, right up to the time of its extinction (this is abundantly verified by fossil data);

 2) Certain well-known genetic processes, for example ones involving hybridization and polyploidy, are known to produce new stable forms in an extremely rapid manner (one or a few generations);

 3) The gradual processes described in Darwin's theory do not produce abrupt change followed by long-term stasis (it says, instead, that small changes are accumulated over lengthy periods of time);

 4) Because the sorts of genetic processes posited by stabilization theory produce the same sort of evolutionary dynamic typically seen in the fossil record (i.e., abrupt genesis followed by long-term stasis) it is concluded that such processes are the typical source of new life forms and that stabilization theory is a better explanation of how macroevolution occurs than is Darwinian theory."
As for publishing, no doubt he’'ll publish it. He has had a comment back on his theory and you can read it here
 
I’m not clear how that is different from PE. Can you explain it to me?

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
Once he accused me of lying (again), he signaled that he didn’t want a discussion. It has happened before.

You have seen how many times my faith has been questioned by people like reggie. I’m used to it.
Click to expand...
Tim - I apologize for my uncharitable comments towards you today and in the past.

Reggie
 
reggieM said:
Tim - I apologize for my uncharitable comments towards you today and in the past.
Click to expand...
One of these days, you and I will meet and have a beer or cup of coffee together. I get the feeling that we are very much alike and would get along great.

Apology not needed but accepted.

Peace

Tim
 
avflf said:
As for publishing, no doubt he’'ll publish it. He has had a comment back on his theory and you can read it here
Click to expand...
That is not what I meant. He needs to publish in journals and present his hypothesis at conferences. That link is from a book publisher.

Peace

Tim
 
buffalo said:
So no snake DNA was found in apes?
Click to expand...
Im sorry you’ve lost me, i would expect snakes and primates so share some DNA:confused:. I don’t see what that has to do with horizontal gene transfer? Could you point me to this paper about “apes” and DNA?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top