B
buffalo
Guest
In addition, DNA through several iterations fights mutations from taking hold. This mechanism itself should give pause to evo theory. The system is not open to mutations as a driver.
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
Yeah, those stupid, stupid scientists!
B
buffalo
Guest
See my posts starting @ 348 in case you missed them.
R
rossum
Guest
Since science cannot investigate every event, it extrapolates from patterns. We do not do a DNA test to check the parentage of every baby born, but we are perfectly happy to say who is the father of the great majority of untested babies.
Point 3 was not about evolution, it was about the absence of evidence for any alternative process anywhere at all. There is no evidence of Amaterasu or Amun intervening to twiddle DNA in bacteria. We do have evidence of evolution twiddling DNA in bacteria. I will go with the available evidence on this.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
So, you have no calculations to show us. Colour me unsurprised.
Why do you bother to argue on a scientific subject if you do not have the calculations to back up your ideas? Is your knowledge of science really that scanty?
rossum
G
goout
Guest
And I had a ham sandwich yesterday.goout:
A Roach becoming resistant to bug spray…doesn’t necessarily mean it can become a Whale one day.Techno2000:
Please explain what you meangoout:
Here we go again…extrapolating microevolution and macroevolution.
R
rossum
Guest
So, Down Syndrome, haemophilia and Achondroplasia do not exist? All three are mutations, and all three have obviously “taken hold” in some cases.
Why on earth do you expect to persuade us with such an obviously incorrect statement?
Yes, there are error-correction mechanisms, which do correct some, but not all, mutations. Those mechanisms are not 100% effective, so mutations do observably “take hold” in some cases.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
A
Aloysium
Guest
It’s up to you to prove that random genetic mutations do anything but kill things.
I know you have a fancy story that a lot of people believe in.
It isn’t dissimilar to how people thought the world was flat.
I’m not surprised either.
But, you did hit it right on the nose.
It seems my knowledge of science is scanty.
And, the more I fill that basin, the deeper it gets.
Go figure.
I know you have a fancy story that a lot of people believe in.
It isn’t dissimilar to how people thought the world was flat.
I’m not surprised either.
But, you did hit it right on the nose.
It seems my knowledge of science is scanty.
And, the more I fill that basin, the deeper it gets.
Go figure.
G
goout
Guest
“You say”:. Respectfully, it doesn’t matter what you say in the least.
Practically speaking, the whole scientific community, including Catholic scientists, disagrees with you and accepts evolution as a very real and workable hypothesis or theory. As does the Church.
If I asked you if Mahler’s 9th is beautiful and you say it’s no it’s ugly, your subjective evaluation has some personal meaning even if I disagree with you.
Regretfully, what “you say” in this matter is of no consequence.
A
Aloysium
Guest
The consequences would be in staying quiet - what is said about hiding one’s light under a bushel.
But then, we hold back because there’s always someone out there to try and put it out I suppose.
As I’m coming to understand more and more how this all works, I’m trying to express it as best I can.
Maybe it helps just one person. It’s all in the saying or not saying. You said your piece and I said mine.
My quote was taken out of context by the way, which alters its meaning.
But then, we hold back because there’s always someone out there to try and put it out I suppose.
As I’m coming to understand more and more how this all works, I’m trying to express it as best I can.
Maybe it helps just one person. It’s all in the saying or not saying. You said your piece and I said mine.
My quote was taken out of context by the way, which alters its meaning.
What followed was more to the point of random-mutation-natural-selection as pseudoscience. It shouldn’t be hard to come up with long lists of studies demonstrating this so called fact of nature that mutations lead to great and wonderful things. But there are none. They are more on the lines of what Buffalo has been presenting, but which no one evidently reads.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Where do feel the massively overwhelming majority of relevant scientists sit on the question at hand? With you, or against you?
I object to the dismissal “out of hand” on reputedly scientific grounds, of positions accepted by the overwhelming majority of professional scientists.
B
buffalo
Guest
They are loss of something once had. They are destructive, not creative.
E
edwest211
Guest
The unguided creation of novel organs. No plausible explanation. Or man was once this tiny sea creature.
E
edwest211
Guest
I agree. All it takes is a handful of fully convinced professors to pass this in no way practical theory to hundreds or thousands of students. The fact is, they will go on to do research in whatever field of Biology they choose, and evolution will provide no guidance. All they will have to deal with is what is alive today.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Life started in Australia…
www.dailymail.co.uk
Oldest life on Earth began more than 3.5 billion years ago
The findings were made by researchers at UCLA and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who used a state of the art secondary ion mass spectrometer to analyse the fossils.
A
anon65111186
Guest
Let’s take a poll, do you agree at least partially with the theory of evolution?
- I agree with at least a part of the theory of evolution
- No, I am anti-evolution and don’t agree at all
- Status