Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Population Genetics
zcoder
Member (Idle past 6208 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 33 of 90 (390452)
03-20-2007 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Allopatrik
02-17-2007 12:59 PM


Is this true?
quote:
we do know that evolution has occurred, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that all known species share a common ancestal species.
couse I was really wondering about that, really and so I did some
fact finding to see for my self the overwhelming evidence in detail
couse if I adope the theroy of evolution I must have all answers to
be fact not assumptions. But I ran into a brick wall.
here is what I have a problem with.
I found out that at a certain level (rocks corresponding to the “Pre Cambrian Era”) the geologic layers
contain almost no fossils. The few that exist are those from cellular and multicellular creatures such as algae or
bacteria. Suddenly, in the next higher layer (corresponding to the “Cambrian Period”) many sophisticated, fully formed
fossils appear. These varied creatures include Trilobites, brachiopods, gastropods, bivalves, crinoids, graptolites,
sponges, and segmented worms. This sudden appearance of so many fully developed life forms can not be explained using
the theory of evolution and the slow-working microevolution model.
Too many different creatures appear fully developed, too suddenly.
Scientists also discovered “living fossils” like the coelacanth that have not changed in form for “millions of years.
This is a genuine embarrassment for scientists who believe in evolution, who had to scramble for ideas that explained
why these animals did not evolve while others did. (They had to find some explanation, or admit that the theory of evolution
was wrong.) A popular example of such an explanation uses the concept of “stabilizing selection,” which would be worded like this:
“Natural selection prevented change by eliminating all the innovations, sometimes for periods of millions of years.
” Notice that this statement is the exact opposite of normal evolutionary thought. If that is really the case, I wonder why some
“renegade” species chose to follow stabilizing selection while others chose to evolve. The reality is that the theory of evolution
has no valid explanation for living fossils.
This is an example of the concept of stasis”standing in one spot. It may help you to know that stasis is not limited to “living fossils.”
Stephen Jay Gould (an evolutionist) stated, “Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the
fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.”
Therefore, both living fossils and the fossil record itself are in conflict with the theory of evolution, which normally teaches that we
should see constant change in species”not stasis. Actually, the concept of stasis fits the Bible’s creation model perfectly. We would expect
created plants and animals to remain in stasis”the way God created them.
And when I searched more I found a tree of life, I observe something surprising”no species on one branch changes
into a species on another branch. In each case the species is distinct. There are no links where one species
changes into another. Yes, you can line up a dog and a cat and a person, but where is the transitional form
that split into the two species? You are only shown a gap where the change was to have taken place.
It does not take a Ph.D. to realize that no true transitional forms have been found, and the tree is trying
to illustrate a principle that does not actually exist.
But they had to change their theory of that tree for a cladogram:
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/p_tree.shtml#cladogram
So I hope you can understand my delima about facts of evolution.
Zcoder....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Allopatrik, posted 02-17-2007 12:59 PM Allopatrik has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ringo, posted 03-20-2007 1:52 PM zcoder has replied
 Message 39 by Chiroptera, posted 03-20-2007 2:43 PM zcoder has not replied
 Message 49 by Fosdick, posted 03-20-2007 7:57 PM zcoder has not replied
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 03-20-2007 8:09 PM zcoder has not replied
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2007 8:05 AM zcoder has replied

  
zcoder
Member (Idle past 6208 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 35 of 90 (390460)
03-20-2007 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ringo
03-20-2007 1:52 PM


oh, but I searched universities who teach this crap to verify it.
and then took a walk to the university just down the block from me.
"Westlen University and Nebraska University."
I got books and university websites to do my comparison with.
All is still theories and you swallowing the crap from evolisonists
hook, line and sinker.
Now Show Me proof that evolution was proven before it was adopted.
and please do not show me those theories, becouse I am searching
for facts only, and I will just reject a theory.
Zcoder...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ringo, posted 03-20-2007 1:52 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by NosyNed, posted 03-20-2007 2:20 PM zcoder has replied
 Message 37 by ringo, posted 03-20-2007 2:29 PM zcoder has not replied

  
zcoder
Member (Idle past 6208 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 38 of 90 (390465)
03-20-2007 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by NosyNed
03-20-2007 2:20 PM


Re: Meaning of Theory
Theory, methodologies, discussion.
In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation,
conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not
necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent
with true descriptions of reality.
for instance the theory Albert Einstein had about gravitational deflection of starlight
by a large mass was just theory untill 1919, when a team led by British astronomer Arthur Eddington
claimed to have confirmed Einstein's prediction of gravitational deflection of starlight by
the Sun while photographing a solar eclipse in Brazil and Principe.
Now that part is confirmed to my standard, and is now fact not a theory.
But my close friend at westlen Univerity Dr. Michael Baden
would say you will try to say theory is also fact. but it can't
be both. so drop the theory word and with his help I will
tell you if it's fact or not. that should cut through the bull.
Now I still would like the facts on the above evolution delima I have.
Zcoder....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by NosyNed, posted 03-20-2007 2:20 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by zcoder, posted 03-20-2007 2:45 PM zcoder has not replied
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 03-20-2007 2:46 PM zcoder has replied
 Message 47 by kuresu, posted 03-20-2007 3:44 PM zcoder has not replied
 Message 52 by nator, posted 03-20-2007 10:24 PM zcoder has not replied

  
zcoder
Member (Idle past 6208 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 40 of 90 (390468)
03-20-2007 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by zcoder
03-20-2007 2:39 PM


Re: Meaning of Theory
I can't find it, I don't use forums for facts I use the internet
for leads, then I use Universities for the facts from there libarys.
Zcoder....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by zcoder, posted 03-20-2007 2:39 PM zcoder has not replied

  
zcoder
Member (Idle past 6208 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 42 of 90 (390474)
03-20-2007 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ringo
03-20-2007 2:46 PM


Re: Meaning of Theory
This is untrue. There are plenty of Precambrian fossils, with plenty of
candidates for precursors of Cambrian fauna. What is more, genetic and
molecular evidence shows the seperate lineages of extant phyla extending
well before the Cambrian, rendering this point moot.
Point me to where you got this information, so I can go find it in
the Universities libarys. just a lead.
Actually, the precursors of many of the so-called "fully developed" Cambrian
fauna can be found in Precambrian deposits. And the transition seems to have
taken on the order of tens of millions of years -- plenty of time for evolution
to have taken place.
same here I would like to search on what fact you got that from too.
The important thing is that the tree exists. It is hard to reconcile a tree
with a separate creation of the different species.
You lost me there, you can't show me the fossils of different species inbetween
their changes? yet you adopt the theory as fact?
It also doesn't take a PhD to realize that true transitional species have been found.
Lots of them, too
I will need you to tell me where these species are today, who found them ect.
ok?
Zcoder....
Edited by zcoder, : post needs quote fixing to look right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 03-20-2007 2:46 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by zcoder, posted 03-20-2007 3:07 PM zcoder has not replied
 Message 44 by Chiroptera, posted 03-20-2007 3:18 PM zcoder has not replied

  
zcoder
Member (Idle past 6208 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 43 of 90 (390475)
03-20-2007 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by zcoder
03-20-2007 3:00 PM


Re: Meaning of Theory
ok
Albert Einstein Archives
Theory - Wikipedia
Zcoder....
Edited by zcoder, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by zcoder, posted 03-20-2007 3:00 PM zcoder has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 03-20-2007 3:23 PM zcoder has not replied

  
zcoder
Member (Idle past 6208 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 46 of 90 (390480)
03-20-2007 3:31 PM


Chiroptera,
My occupation is not in this feild, mine is in
electronics engineering and programming.
thanks for the link, I do apriciate it couse I
have always been a true beleiver in keeping a open
mind while searching for facts. unlike some people I know.
I do my home work. I now need time to read these sites
to gain more knowledge, enough to take that to the Univercity
to find professional articles on it.
Thank again.
Zcoder....

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Wounded King, posted 03-20-2007 5:25 PM zcoder has not replied

  
zcoder
Member (Idle past 6208 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 55 of 90 (390564)
03-21-2007 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by RAZD
03-20-2007 10:34 PM


Now wait a minute, I don't need to be bashed becouse I said I have a
delima to understand, after all I asked for leads then I took the
inishative to look it up. and like I said my real feild is in
Electronics and programming.
I am still going through the text and learning, I also found more
then I expected. I just don't understand the members on this forum.
I also visit a programming forum and WE never treat the newbies to
programming like this, infact, having a problem in understanding
something becouse of a lack of info, is a healthy process to earning.
I am just beginning my journey into science so I agree I have a ways
to go. at least I am doing my home work. and I thank those who gave
me leads.
This is only a hobby for me that this time. I hope to have my head
wraped around all the info I just gathered up.
I don't mean to come off as you all do to me but with that said I
also understand that in this forum it can be hard to tell how
something was said, and in what tone.
So I will still hope that most of all this is just a big miss understanding into how something was taken.
I hope to be done with my research soon.
Zcoder....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2007 10:34 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2007 7:39 AM zcoder has not replied
 Message 74 by Fosdick, posted 03-21-2007 12:05 PM zcoder has not replied

  
zcoder
Member (Idle past 6208 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 58 of 90 (390584)
03-21-2007 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by RAZD
03-21-2007 8:05 AM


Your right about the fact that I should not use creationist infomation,
But I also can't use evolutionists infomation. For instance, I can read
evolutionists infomation for leads and understand that side of the coin,
and then I can read the creationist infomation on that side also.
Then taking the two views and start my search using info from sources like
(AAAS) and (NAS) this way I can confirm arguments of both sides, to see who's
argument is in true regards with (AAAS) and (NAS) who by the way should be on
no sides.
But so far (AAAS) and (NAS) both have published the said finds on Ediacaran
and the mammaliforms but there is no real conclusive evadence about any
form of evolution among these. so I was now checking out the finds from
Neanderthal, to Cro-Magnon, to Homo sapien. with a open mind that this
could be evolution or a species that died out.
But I am finding the evadence to be blured in deed, and now I am treading
in waters that clearly shows me why the sciences are broke into two types
of science's evolution, creation.
It's funny how I go into this learning stuff I had not known, but still not
finding my answer for eather side. In away, both sides have holes here
and there, only becouse of the time we are in I am sure.
So this is a delema in deed. Sort of like being in a pickle.
hey, but it's a fun journey, and I am sure My journey will never
result in my answer, but will give me a more inlightened outlook.
Anyway I now understand why some people are evolustionists while others
are creationists, and it all comes from what your predisposition is
before you started your learning all this.
For example, IF am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that nothing can
exist outside of the natural realm (i.e. there can be no supernatural God), then no
amount of evidence could convince me otherwise. Asking the question "does God exist?"
would be pointless. My answer would be "No, He doesn't," regardless of whether God truly
exists or not. The question would be impossible to answer from an evidentiary standpoint
simply because anything which God might have done (that is, any supernatural act which might
serve as evidence for His existence) would have to be explained away in terms of natural causes,
not because we know what those natural causes could possibly be, but simply because a supernatural
God is not allowed to exist.
And then the otherway around IF you already believe in god then every thing you learn in advancement
in science is evadence of what god created meaning from DNA to what DNA is build of.
But so far my journey is early, but already I have concluded only one fact and that is that both sides
have already proven that the universe had a starting point. sorry if thats not an accurate description,
I am trying not to use the word created.
Anyway I am in no way done, so I am sure I will have more things I run into and I might post it to see
if others could inject more on it in hopes that, that may lead me to more understanding, or possiblilites.
I just hope it wont be taken wrong. and if my predisposition seems to appear as a creationist then it might
be becouse I am from a religious background.
All I can do is respect all members even if I get bashed. after all someone should take the ethical stance.
Zcoder....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2007 8:05 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 03-21-2007 9:22 AM zcoder has replied
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2007 6:58 PM zcoder has not replied

  
zcoder
Member (Idle past 6208 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 60 of 90 (390601)
03-21-2007 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by nator
03-21-2007 9:22 AM


The thing is, though, that Creation "science" isn't actually science at all. They do not use the methods of science.
Creation "science's" promotors only call what they do "science" because they are attempting to gain the credability and prestige and legitimacy that real science has.
Creation "science" is merely scientific-sounding misinformation, lies, and falsehoods designed to fool the religious gullible and ignorant.
I am in the middle of the issue, and as I see it, there are christian scientists who use the same scientific research and tests.
for instance Alan Shepherd - astronaut or Albert Einstein - physicist both are christians and are scientists in their own fields.
and there are many more.
It is not fair to cast them off as not good at science based on their religion.
I could make the judment that Atheists will always dis-believe god even if they measured his presents and calculated it.
But that would be a radical statement and not true, or fair to these people just becouse of their beliefs.
I try to sway away from being dishonest and radical in my assertions of people.
Zcoder....
Edited by zcoder, : quote fix

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 03-21-2007 9:22 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Wounded King, posted 03-21-2007 10:18 AM zcoder has replied
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 03-21-2007 10:49 AM zcoder has replied

  
zcoder
Member (Idle past 6208 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 62 of 90 (390611)
03-21-2007 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Wounded King
03-21-2007 10:18 AM


I will correct that for you and be more clear ok?
he is of Jewish decent but was raised in a Catholic school
so maybe I should say he is Catholic?
Zcoder....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Wounded King, posted 03-21-2007 10:18 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by zcoder, posted 03-21-2007 10:49 AM zcoder has not replied

  
zcoder
Member (Idle past 6208 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 64 of 90 (390614)
03-21-2007 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by zcoder
03-21-2007 10:41 AM


But I will be fair to point out that I in no way claim to be a
historyian, and I would not know if later on Albert Einstein would
have changed his religious belifes, so I will not argue the point.
Zcoder....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by zcoder, posted 03-21-2007 10:41 AM zcoder has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Wounded King, posted 03-21-2007 11:02 AM zcoder has not replied
 Message 67 by Coragyps, posted 03-21-2007 11:02 AM zcoder has not replied

  
zcoder
Member (Idle past 6208 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 65 of 90 (390615)
03-21-2007 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by ringo
03-21-2007 10:49 AM


Ringo,
I don't know you, nore will I ever. But I sence a hate or something
from you about people of faith. This is just my observation.
only you can correct me on that.
Zcoder....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 03-21-2007 10:49 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by ringo, posted 03-21-2007 11:34 AM zcoder has not replied
 Message 71 by jar, posted 03-21-2007 11:43 AM zcoder has not replied

  
zcoder
Member (Idle past 6208 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 68 of 90 (390626)
03-21-2007 11:28 AM


To say remarks that a persons children are ignorant becouse of
what they believe is unbelievable in these times.
The believe in any god does not hurt other people. and anything other
then that would seem like a hate or dislike of a group for who they are.
which if gone unchecked would be no different then what the Nazi's did
to the jews.
From your example I would be wrong to say that atheists are hateful when
I know many who don't let a persons believe cloud their humanity to others.
Zcoder....

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Coragyps, posted 03-21-2007 11:46 AM zcoder has not replied

  
zcoder
Member (Idle past 6208 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 03-19-2007


Message 70 of 90 (390633)
03-21-2007 11:38 AM


Likewise I said in other posts that I don't buy into the young-earth thingy.
Zcoder....

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by nator, posted 03-22-2007 8:23 AM zcoder has not replied
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2007 6:40 PM zcoder has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024