|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How long does it take to evolve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Lamden, you presented us with a false dilemma, not a very honest technique. You wrote:
Lamden writes: That's very dishonest. If you really are interested in honest debate; you should drop obvious untruths such as those.
And in order for the creationists to win, they don't have to prove that creation happened. They just have to prove that e/v could NOT happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Lamden writes: I know it is not easy to count, but I am looking for an educated guess. If DNA alone is 6 ft of microscopic code, that must been quite a bit of evolving right there! If stretched out, the DNA of the plant Paris japonica would stretch more than 328 feet — taller than Big Ben — while the genome from a human cell would stretch just 6.5 feet. Now, that's a lot of evolution going on there. But guess what, the evolution of Paris japonica from those oldest fossils discovered (prokaryotes from around 3.8 billion years ago), also took around 3.8 billion years. Can you calculate the mutation rate? Can you see that your questions don't make any sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Lamden writes:
You've been shown to be wrong a few times. Providing a false dichotomy is one of them.
If I am wrong, if you have the patience to show me where, I, ME, MYSELF, ONLY ME, would like to understand where I went wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Lamden wrote:
Lamden writes: 64 250 521 billion trillion point mutations. But doing the sums, it works out that there was plenty of time as mutations such as genetic capture were not included in the point mutation calculations. After considering all those other 'kinds' of mutations we know of at the moment; it all works perfectly with 3.758 billion years to spare! would like to know, approximately how many mutations would theoretically be needed to transform the most basic form of life into a human being? Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Yip. From my point of view Lamden is a dishonest creationist because he/she told untruths about the basics.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Yip. From my point of view Lamden is a dishonest creationist. And he tells untruths. The false dichotomy gave him/her away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Oh, I did understand Lamden. You presented a false dilemma. I understand that very, very well. Are you able to understand it, darling? Honey?
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
I'm going to be a Prophet now and predict that, if Lamden returns, 'Haldane's dilemma' may or may not feature somewhere...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Big_Al is trying to divert attention away from reality. Big-Al can't face reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
AZPaul writes: That's how I understand it, too. There's no ordered steps. It doesn't happen in the order of mutation one and then mutation two and then mutation three and then mutation four and then mutation five and then mutation six and then and then and then.... The order of mutations don't matter. In the end, the combined effects of all the mutations (no order of mutations happening) do things.
The whole individual. Any new mutation may well be passed on to the babies be it good, bad or indifferent. The key in natural selection is the combined phenome, the whole of the individual, with respect to their ability to make healthy babies (fecundity).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
I hear you viewpoint, MrHambre, but sorry, to me the viewpoints provided were spouted by people who spend too much time writing about science and not enough time actually doing it.
Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
MrHambre writes: In my field, economic geology and the coal deposits in the Witbank and Ellisras Coalfields, yes, you're most welcome to try. And my question still stands: is there any conceivable critique of modern science that we would find acceptable? If you find a better way of accurately predicting what will be found underground then you're most welcome to go for it. Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Tanypteryx writes: I also got the same undercurrent of disapproval about science from that person. Actually, in the posts from that person I picked up a very great distaste for anything scientific. Thinking back over the MrHambre posts that I have read there is a strong undercurrent of disapproval or dislike of science. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024