|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: scientific end of evolution theory (2) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[b]Ever heard of a multipurpose genome? Ever heard of the adaptation hypothesis?[/QUOTE] [/b] But why, if everything was created and presumably created to fit its niche, why would the ability to adapt be a feature? No significant environmental changes have occured in the last 6000 years, as an omniscient God would know. Why would animals need to adapt?
quote: Just look at how these behaviors are used today... ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I thought that was the tactic you employed.
[quote][b]Che Quevera demonstrates the most straightforward example of a redundant trait of the human brain: the ability of hearing music. The absence of this trait does not affect the fitness/survival, as clearly demonstrated by individuals suffering from amusia.[/quote] [/b] It proves that an individual can survive with tone deafness in modern society. What is does not prove is that this trait wasn't useful at some earlier stage.
quote: You've got to be kidding. All of this stuff has survival value for an animal that depends on society to survive. Read up on cultural ecology, Marvin Harris in particular.
quote: Hopefully story-telling of better quality than your own.
quote: Could be a side effect of the ability to regenerate a tail.
quote: Why? You said yourself that regeneration is a superb survival trick.
[quote][b]They pose the idea that regeneration is a remnant of a common primitive characteristic exhibited by all primordial life forms and it has disappeared in the major part of organisms today due to selection against[/quote] [/b]quote: Unless the author's contention that regeneration is a common primative characteristic can be upheld, this argument is worthless. I, for one, doubt the premise.
quote: Not if is a trade-off for another trait that is more advantageous, or if said trait were not advantageous for a long period of time-- as is the case with eyes in deep cave dwellers.
quote: Why does bone heal? Your objection is WHY DO BONES HEAL?
quote: How do you know? You have to support this claim for your objection to stand. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
I'm running late, but one quick question.
quote: The genes in question, are they specific to humans? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The question then is how long have these genes been around? And 'highly conserved' meaning what exactly? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Have you no clue how science works? Virtually everything is indirect if you think about it, and by your method, unwarranted. Take, for example, gravity.... every bit of evidence we have for gravity is indirect-- you can't point to it and say "aha!!!" But we can measure gravity? No, we can watch a pointer on a scale; this is indirect. We can observe the effects on stars and planets. Yes, and INFER a force called gravity; this is indirect. And how 'bout genetics? That is all indirect as well, so be consistent and stop using most of the data at your disposal. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: So if we stack up lots of evidence then you'll accept it? The cranium is not the only portion of anatomy that can suggest bipedalism. Hip structure, knee structure, back structure, foot structure all work as well. Want I should look all of this up for you?
quote: n=1 ?????
quote: Because, for one, you cannot eliminate the other alternatives. Genetic redundancies also argue for evolution.
quote: I do follow your posts. Your evidence, despite your claims, doesn't support your position.
quote: I disagree. Not everything can be explained within multiple paradigms. The evidence itself is independent of our interpretations, ultimately. It sometimes takes awhile for old ideas to die, of course, and in the meantime evidence is twisted to fit prevailing opinion. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: For the moment, the skull of sahelanthropus is it. You threw me for a second with 'sahel-man'. This species could hardly be called man. Its a precursor or cousin from around the time the human line and chimp line split.
quote: It doesn't, taken alone. I don't think anyone is trying to make it prove evolution. It could suggest common descent.
quote: I have read your posts on the subject and I don't buy it. You haven't proven your case. There is already a thread for this so I am not going into it here.
quote: There is also a thread for this, and I believe I have posted some objections on that thread.
quote: Data. Though it is hard to seperate the two. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Let me know if you need a trusty side-kick in this noble crusade. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024