H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Yep, and it took quite a long time. Pretty incredible what God can set in motion
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Recent peer reviewed paper overturns Neo Darwinian mathematical model
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Did God have to use evolution to create the fish,loaves and wine ?Yep, and it took quite a long time. Pretty incredible what God can set in motion
N
niceatheist
Guest
Birds ARE dinosaurs.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Who said anything about “had to?”
N
niceatheist
Guest
But it isn’t a problem. They are precisely the same process
T
Techno2000
Guest
The dinosaurs went extinct 65 million year ago… not really the just morphed into birds.Yes, that is obviously what I’m saying. Modern classification considers birds to be extant dinosaurs.
T
Techno2000
Guest
No, the germ is still a germ, it didn’t change into a completely new creature.But it isn’t a problem. They are precisely the same process
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Lol. Go learn things instead of condescending to me. I’m out.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
Sigh. You really need to take a science class.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Sorry, not trying to be mean, I just can never get a satisfactory answers on this I have ask this many time before on these forums .Lol. Go learn things instead of condescending to me. I’m out.
T
Techno2000
Guest
It would just about impossible to find one that isn’t biased towards Darwinism.Sigh. You really need to take a science class.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
What you mean to say is science classes teach science. You won’t find a cosmogy class that isn’t biased towards GR. You’ll have to go to one of those fake universities if you want to not have to learn anything
C
crai7
Guest
Their abstract is very circumspect, as it should be in science. But if you read further, it’s a bit more subtle than that. Basener and Sanford (the authors of the paper I posted in the OP) kept a respectful distance from Fisher - preferring to point to the data available to Fisher at that point in history, rather than blaming him for excluding the genetic component. It’s more a matter of newer observations no longer being in accord with Fisher’s assumptions. Since Fisher’s assumption was a 1:1 deleterious to beneficial (if you look at Fisher’s book “Genetical Theory of Natural Selection” from 1930, he assumed the very worst were selected out and the remaining mutations balanced out to being fitness neutral). However since modern observations no longer accord with Fisher’s assumption (for instance Gerrish and Lenski’s 1998 estimate is 1,000,000:1) Basener and Sanford had to include a component to account for mutations. As they showed, their revised theorem predicts the same directional outcome as Fisher’s original - i.e. increasing fitness - ONLY when you assume 1:1. Otherwise, the new model which is capable of accounting for ratios other than 1:1, predicts decreasing fitness, even with a conservative estimate of 1,000:1.
If you look at Dr Sanford’s lecture to the NIH - which included mention of the paper we are discussing - you will notice he goes well beyond saying he’s just ‘fixing a flaw’ in Fisher’s work. See the link below:
If you look at Dr Sanford’s lecture to the NIH - which included mention of the paper we are discussing - you will notice he goes well beyond saying he’s just ‘fixing a flaw’ in Fisher’s work. See the link below:
Last edited:
C
crai7
Guest
It’s in the OP.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.