Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 160 (517460)
08-01-2009 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Coyote
07-31-2009 11:25 PM


Re: Analogy fails
coyote writes:
Micro-evolution is accepted by pretty much everyone. Macro-evolution is denied by fundamentalists on religious grounds, but accepted by biologists and other scientists most familiar with the field.
Most scientist believed in a supernatural creation before the "enlightenment". Natural variation is an obvious design feature. Without the ability of organisms to adapt there would be no life at all. Macro evolution is not denied by fundamentalists on grounds of religion but on empirical analysis. Science doesn't show macro-evolution, belief does. Your belief is 200 years old, mine is 6 thousand. It doesn't matter what a scientist believes but what he explains using repeatable experiments, not philosophy.
coyote writes:
And your analogy, like the tornado in a junkyard, fails because living organisms don't react in the same way as do manufactured items. Not even close. Living organisms change minutely with each generation, and those changes are acted upon by the environment. This diversity, interacting with the environment, is often referred to as natural selection. I have yet to see random parts in a junkyard, or even at Intel, evolve on their own.
I'm going to stick my head out here but consider this:
3.109 base pairs for a human genome. With a 97% similarity with the apes.
That is 2.9*109 differences. Lets halve this to get to the supposed branch. So we have 1.4*109 changes. That is at least 1 forward change per year without a reverse change over 1.4 billion years. That is simply ridiculous. And that is only the "supposed" change from ape to human. Look at the probability of rock to human in 4 billion years. Not possible.

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Coyote, posted 07-31-2009 11:25 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by DrJones*, posted 08-01-2009 3:36 AM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 3:44 AM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 08-01-2009 3:48 AM LucyTheApe has replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 160 (517467)
08-01-2009 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by DrJones*
08-01-2009 3:36 AM


Re: Analogy fails
Dr writes:
Recheck your math, 3% of 3 x 109 is 9 x 107
Thanks Dr. your right, sorry 'bout my quick unthoughthrough calculations. So instead of 109 we have 108
changes. Doesn't really change anything.

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by DrJones*, posted 08-01-2009 3:36 AM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 4:14 AM LucyTheApe has replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 160 (517473)
08-01-2009 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Coyote
08-01-2009 3:48 AM


Re: Analogy fails
Coyote writes:
Re: Analogy fails
Lucy, there just isn't anything in your post worthy of a response.
You say Coyote, that you have bones of people antediluvian. Then you say that you have can relate these to contemporary tribes. Please show me the evidence. I was brought up a scientist, still am. But things these days don't seem to add up.

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 08-01-2009 3:48 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Coyote, posted 08-01-2009 6:46 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 160 (517475)
08-01-2009 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dr Adequate
08-01-2009 4:14 AM


Re: Analogy fails
DrA. writes:
The fact that your figures are wrong doesn't affect the validity of an argument supposedly based on those figures?
work it out yourself Dick.

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 4:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2009 4:40 AM LucyTheApe 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