Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 1 of 60 (567304)
06-30-2010 2:53 PM


Im new to C vs E. Hope to add useful debate ;P

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AZPaul3, posted 06-30-2010 2:56 PM Practical Prodigy has not replied
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2010 3:06 PM Practical Prodigy has replied
 Message 4 by Huntard, posted 06-30-2010 3:08 PM Practical Prodigy has not replied

  
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 5 of 60 (567329)
06-30-2010 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by New Cat's Eye
06-30-2010 3:06 PM


About Me
I'm a theist, I believe in Theistic evolution.
I am most knowledgable about physics, followed by biology, then chemistry. I have an Associates Degree in Applied Science (CIT) and a Bachelors Degree in Applied Science (Forensics). Does that sum it up

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2010 3:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2010 4:33 PM Practical Prodigy has replied
 Message 8 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-30-2010 7:04 PM Practical Prodigy has replied
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 06-30-2010 7:25 PM Practical Prodigy has replied

  
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 10 of 60 (567369)
06-30-2010 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by New Cat's Eye
06-30-2010 4:33 PM


Re: About Me
know more physics and chemistry than biology. I've got a good grasp of the Theory of Evolution. I like the cosmology stuff too, Big Bang, Inflation, etc.
I've been through Genesis a lot. The Flood. The Synoptic Gospels. Some of Leviticus. I'm lacking on the history.
How's your Bible knowledge? Where do you lack knowledge the most, in general
I also like atronomy and cosmology. I am pretty well versed in the Bible, my history knowledge is fairly vast I have done alot of research on most of the Books. I have also researched Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, and Sacred Writings such as; Book of Enoch, Book of Adam, etc.
Pretty much. Thanks!
Are you Christian? Which denomination?
Where are you lacking?
I am a nondenominational Christian. I'd say I'm lacking most in organized religion, I grew up in Roman Catholic schooling but dont hold much stock in the "Hollywood" style religion types. In my opinion it takes you from the personal relationship with God and destroys free-thinking and encourages dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2010 4:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2010 12:54 PM Practical Prodigy has replied

  
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 11 of 60 (567375)
06-30-2010 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Minnemooseus
06-30-2010 7:04 PM


Re: Theist and evolutionist or theistic evolutionist?
As I understand such, theistic evolutionist means a belief that God guided evolution to some degree, be it small or in detail.
On the other hand, there are theists who believe in a creator God and an unguided by God evolution. As such, there is a distinction between being a theist evolutionist and a theistic evolutionist.
So, are you actually a theistic evolutionist?
Well as I understand it there is three different camps, creationism (which believes in creation and Young Earth and literal interpretation of Genesis), theistic evolutionists (which believes in an allegory version of Genesis and creation), and naturalist evolutionists (no belief in God, just abiogenesis and evolution).
My position in theistic evolution, due to the fact that I believe in the process of adaptation, mutation, etc (ie micro-evolution). I do not believe that one species will become another through macro-evolution. I also believe that Evolutional Theory, which is based on philosophical naturalism (a religious worldview), is used to explain processes in the hypothetical distant past and even the extreme distances of the Universe. Methodological naturalism is thus going far beyond science's proper boundaries of the observable human experience. Proper science uses inductive reasoning from facts or general principles and causality, without excluding possibilities (supernatural or natural). Using undirected nature and unnatural intelligent causes to explain everything in the human experience leaves various phenomena unexplained (a basis for most of the content on this site). If something is not repeatable and leaves little trace or no trace of its occurance, mainstream science has a hard time dealing with it. Evolutional theory does not nearly have all the answers it is limited in its application at best, and misleading at worst.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-30-2010 7:04 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2010 10:31 PM Practical Prodigy has replied
 Message 14 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-30-2010 10:36 PM Practical Prodigy has not replied

  
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 12 of 60 (567377)
06-30-2010 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
06-30-2010 7:25 PM


Re: welcome
Yes I love mysteries and researching things and figuring out things with little to no evidence ;P
Forensics when applied to this debate produces interesting results...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 06-30-2010 7:25 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 15 of 60 (567391)
06-30-2010 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
06-30-2010 10:31 PM


Re: Theist and evolutionist or theistic evolutionist?
Then you're not a theistic evolutionist.
What is your definition of a theistic view then? I believe God has guided a limited form of evolution/adaptation/variation that means I am not a Creationist and not an Evolutionists. The misnomer Old World Creationist is an catch-all term for; creationism, including Gap creationism and Progressive creationism. I also only reject macro-evolution not the consensus on observable micro-evolution.
I believe that biological micro-evolution is merely another process within creation. It is what God employed to develop diversity and adaptation.
If that was true, then there wouldn't be any actual theistic evolutionists.
Naturalism is a religious worldview, theistic evolutionists and accept the supernatural aspect of creation. Fundamental evolutionists believe in abiogenesis and hold a naturalists world view in most instances as does a majority of empirical science. The are based on the human experince and observable processes.

This stance is concerned with knowledge: what are methods for gaining trustworthy knowledge of the natural world? It is an epistemological view that is specifically concerned with practical methods for acquiring knowledge, irrespective of one's metaphysical or religious views. It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events. Explanations of observable effects are considered to be practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes (i.e., specific mechanisms, not indeterminate miracles). Methodological naturalism is the principle underlying all of modern science. Naturalism - Wikipedia(philosophy)
If that isnt a religious worldview I dont know what is.
Edited by Practical Prodigy, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2010 10:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-30-2010 11:20 PM Practical Prodigy has replied
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-01-2010 1:43 AM Practical Prodigy has not replied
 Message 20 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-01-2010 2:15 AM Practical Prodigy has not replied
 Message 27 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-01-2010 3:35 PM Practical Prodigy has not replied

  
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 17 of 60 (567400)
06-30-2010 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Adminnemooseus
06-30-2010 11:20 PM


Re: Specfic topic debate does not belong in a Coffee House "Hello" topic
You can close and move to new thread as you see fit, I respect that...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-30-2010 11:20 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-01-2010 12:09 AM Practical Prodigy has not replied

  
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 23 of 60 (567542)
07-01-2010 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
07-01-2010 12:54 PM


Re: About Me
Ooh... Sounds like somebody's been reading too much creationist literature That's not a position you'll arrive at from reading the biology.
There's nothing preventing a bunch of micros from resulting in a macro. Its pretty much a fact that one species can evolve into another.
I wrote up a post near that subject, Theropods and Birds showing a change in kinds, take a look and reply there.
Actually there is alot of things that can stop a bunch of micro's from resulting in a macro. Here is an interesting excerpt to show what I meant:
quote:
Evolvability is a key characteristic of any evolving system, and the concept of evolvability serves as a unifying theme in a wide range of disciplines related to evolutionary theory. The field of quantitative genetics provides a framework for the exploration of evolvability with the promise to produce insights of global importance. With respect to the quantitative genetics of biological systems, the parameters most relevant to evolvability are the G-matrix, which describes the standing additive genetic variances and covariances for a suite of traits, and the M-matrix, which describes the effects of new mutations on genetic variances and covariances. A population's immediate response to selection is governed by the G-matrix. However, evolvability is also concerned with the ability of mutational processes to produce adaptive variants, and consequently the M-matrix is a crucial quantitative genetic parameter. Here, we explore the evolution of evolvability by using analytical theory and simulation-based models to examine the evolution of the mutational correlation, r(mu), the key parameter determining the nature of genetic constraints imposed by M. The model uses a diploid, sexually reproducing population of finite size experiencing stabilizing selection on a two-trait phenotype. We assume that the mutational correlation is a third quantitative trait determined by multiple additive loci. An individual's value of the mutational correlation trait determines the correlation between pleiotropic effects of new alleles when they arise in that individual. Our results show that the mutational correlation, despite the fact that it is not involved directly in the specification of an individual's fitness, does evolve in response to selection on the bivariate phenotype. The mutational variance exhibits a weak tendency to evolve to produce alignment of the M-matrix with the adaptive landscape, but is prone to erratic fluctuations as a consequence of genetic drift. The interpretation of this result is that the evolvability of the population is capable of a response to selection, and whether this response results in an increase or decrease in evolvability depends on the way in which the bivariate phenotypic optimum is expected to move. Interestingly, both analytical and simulation results show that the mutational correlation experiences disruptive selection, with local fitness maxima at -1 and +1. Genetic drift counteracts the tendency for the mutational correlation to persist at these extreme values, however. Our results also show that an evolving M-matrix tends to increase stability of the G-matrix under most circumstances. Previous studies of G-matrix stability, which assume nonevolving M-matrices, consequently may overestimate the level of instability of G relative to what might be expected in natural systems. Overall, our results indicate that evolvability can evolve in natural systems in a way that tends to result in alignment of the G-matrix, the M-matrix, and the adaptive landscape, and that such evolution tends to stabilize the G-matrix over evolutionary time.
There is limits based on genetic information available in other words. Even mutations and variations have to come from pre-existing genetic information. No new genes can be created only combined in various ways. Explain the evolution of the following features by the accumulation and selection of small mutations; hair in mammals, feathers in birds, segmentation in arthropods and of vertebrates, the transformation of gill-arches in phylogeny, including the aortic arches, muscles, nerves, etc. Further, teeth, shells of molluscs, ectoskeletons, compound eyes, blood circulation, alternation of generations, statocysts, ambulacral system of ecinoderm, pedicellara of the same, enidocysts, poison apparatus of snakes, and finally, primary chemical differences like hemoglobin versus hemocyanin, etc. I could also provide examples with plants but I highly doubt you could even cover these, look forward to the explainations ;P
All of science is based on methodological naturalism. Evolutionary Theory isn't based on a philosophy of naturalism and more than, say, chemistry acid/base titrations. We don't look for God in the test tube, so why look for him behind the genes?
Im not sure what your trying to imply. I stated that science was based on methodological naturalism and divorces anything that cant be repeatedly observed or explained through naturalism from its scope. This would leave out various phenomena that have been thoroughly proven to occur. There is a difference between looking for God behind something you can observe and applying a philosophic belief system of deduction and inductive reasoning to something you cant observe nor prove beyond a hypothetic theory. Take a few Forensics classes and you will see what I mean. Do you know how many times the observed data will be completely wrong? Do you realize how much of a person perspective relates to the observance? I could go on for days...
Maybe somewhat in some places, but not in general. I doubt anything with a consensus has gone outside the boudaries. Evolution certainly hasn't.
I'm sorry but that is simply false for various reasons. Evolution has certainly gone far beyond it scope and basis as a majority of its "proof" is based on extrapolation and inference not on hard evidence. Even in the genetic arena, which is its strongest evidence initiator, there are usally as many questions that are raised and things unexplainable or unobserved. It uses theory, inferences, and fitting available data to a theory to determine its "facts". Quite a poor way of gathering evidence and making its case, and this is coming from someone who's job it is to gather evidence and cross-reference sources. Most of the genetic data and correlations evolutional biologists provide as "missing-links" would never hold up in a court case, which in my experience is more flexible in its acceptance of scientific evidence than mainstream science is SUPPOSED to be.
Supernatural... by science's nature of being methodological naturalism, everything it can study is by definition natural. Something truely supernatural must be excluded from science and if it ain't, then it ain't supernatural. If something you hold as supernatural does end up being studied by science, then that would mean that it really was natural the whole time.
I think the word paranormal works better when discussing the things that I think you are referring to.
Paranormal and supernatural are synonyms and mean the exact same thing so I'm lost on your point here. As far as naturalism its scope only refers to things thought to duplicate themselves, everything it can study is not by definition natural just repeatable. But then again that depends on your interpretation and use of the word natural.
To which the philisophical naturalist would find no use in studying. But oh well, its his loss. Perhaps.
That applies to methodological naturalism as well, one is the basis for the other. They are not exclusive.
That diversity of life on Earth has certainly been answered. Outside of that, the Theory of Evolution doesn't apply. I think you'll find that the misleading isn't really by the scientists, but by the creationists in saying that the scientists are misleading.
It has not been answered thats conjecture and personal opinion and there are several instances I could show to dispute that observation. But I'll save that for the topics as they are created or I find them and reply to them on these boards.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2010 12:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 07-01-2010 2:42 PM Practical Prodigy has replied
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2010 2:48 PM Practical Prodigy has replied
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2010 3:09 PM Practical Prodigy has replied

  
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 32 of 60 (567578)
07-01-2010 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by PaulK
07-01-2010 2:48 PM


Re: Where do new species come from ?
Since you reject speciation by evolution, where do all the species come from, especially all the new species that have arisen throughout the history of the Earth ?
Actually that depends on your definition of species, which varies and means different things depending on its use and context in biology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2010 2:48 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2010 1:43 AM Practical Prodigy has not replied

  
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 33 of 60 (567582)
07-01-2010 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Huntard
07-01-2010 2:42 PM


Re: About Me
Yeah, that's not how we do things around here. If you'd like to discuss the evidence for the evolution of that stuff, pick one (yes, just one) subject and propose a new thread. Nobody is going to tackle all of that at once.
Well when asked a question I'll post why I have said position, was not attempting to have to delve this deep into my beliefs in an introductory thread, LOL.
Like?
Unexplained Phenomena:
The Placebo Effect
The Sixth Sense
Near Death Experience
UFO's/USO's - Unidentified Flying/Submerged Objects
Dj Vu (Memory illusion)
The Big Bang (Origin of the Universe)
Singularity
Mammatus Clouds
Non-aqueous Rain
St Elmo’s Fire
Ghosts
Spontaneous Human Combustion
Unexplained Disappearances
Bermuda Triangle
The Hum
Psychic Phenomena (esp, remote viewing, telepathy, clairvoyance or telekinesis)
Naga Fireballs
Blue Jets and Red Sprites
Earthquake Lights
Relationship between brain and body
Capacity (psychic and spiritual)
Electronic Voice Phenomenon
The Sirius Mystery (as well as other ancient cosmology knowledge not visible from Earth)
Tunguska Explosion
Charles E. Peck (Chatsworth crash)
Would you like me to go on?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 07-01-2010 2:42 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Huntard, posted 07-02-2010 1:45 AM Practical Prodigy has replied
 Message 47 by Larni, posted 07-02-2010 5:54 AM Practical Prodigy has not replied
 Message 55 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2010 10:28 AM Practical Prodigy has not replied

  
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 34 of 60 (567590)
07-01-2010 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by New Cat's Eye
07-01-2010 3:09 PM


Re: About Me
A lot? Like what, in general in your own words? Just one.
I posted in my own word below excerpt I posted.
Its always a good ideo to provide links when you quote outside material. I found the article here:
The mutation matrix and the evolution of evolvability - PubMed
Sorry meant to do that totally forgot until you reminded me, wont happen again
I didn't quite get that from the article. Can you explain in your own words how the article says that? What is the limit? How is it based on genetic information available?
The limit imposed on evolvabilty is the variance of mutations. Mutations do not add new genetic information just recombine genetic material in a varied fashion. This does not explain how genetic information will mutate in the exact set of genes to allow a new complex expression. In other words, the convergence of abundant variation occuring at same time and strong selection influences. This happens when a single gene influences multiple phenotypic traits. A new mutation in the gene may have an effect on some or all traits simultaneously. This can become a problem when selection on one trait favors one specific version of the gene (allele), while the selection on the other trait favors another allele. Hope I covered what you meant and didnt go off on a tangent ;P
Well I'm not going to go through all those here. Some of them can be explained, some of them I don't know about.
But a currently unexplained phenomenon doesn't falsify the theory, nor is any of those showing how a bunch of micros are prevented from being a macro.
Perhaps in another thread then. These are the adaptations I could not find any non-theoritical explaination for. But like I said I'll makes another thread soon and show you how little is known about these adaptations.
Like what?
In above post, but I'll repost so its clear :
Unexplained Phenomena:
The Placebo Effect
The Sixth Sense
Near Death Experience
UFO's/USO's - Unidentified Flying/Submerged Objects
Dj Vu (Memory illusion)
The Big Bang (Origin of the Universe)
Singularity
Mammatus Clouds
Non-aqueous Rain
St Elmo’s Fire
Ghosts
Spontaneous Human Combustion
Unexplained Disappearances
Bermuda Triangle
The Hum
Psychic Phenomena (esp, remote viewing, telepathy, clairvoyance or telekinesis)
Naga Fireballs
Blue Jets and Red Sprites
Earthquake Lights
Relationship between brain and body
Capacity (psychic and spiritual)
Electronic Voice Phenomenon
The Sirius Mystery (as well as other ancient cosmology knowledge not visible from Earth)
Tunguska Explosion
Charles E. Peck (Chatsworth crash)
Sure, but even the Theory of Evolution does not say that god has nothing to do with it.
I guess that is one way of looking at it, but I think a vast majority of naturalist evolutionists would beg to differ for some reason on that one ;P
How so?
I explained this due to its focus on observable processes, focus on theories and hypothesis, etc. Cant make it much clearer than that read my other posts.
Well I haven't seen any of it.
Thats like saying since you cant see Andromeda that it doesnt exist. I dont understand how thats a reply to my post.
Supernatural implies that there can never be a scientific explanation while paranormal allows for one to be discovered in the future.
Thats a semantic position, not a logical one. They mean the exact same thing maybe try looking up their proper definitions or would you like me to post them here?
Philisophical Naturalism is an idea. It deals with ontology, what exists and what doesn't. Methodological Naturalism is a process. It deals with epistemology, how can we acquire knowledge about the world. They are not the same thing.
Applying Methodological Naturalism is not assuming Philisophical Naturalism. That's why I can perform chemistry expirements without considering whether god is in the test tube or not all the while taking no position on god's existence. The same goes with the Theory of Evolution... seeking a natural explanation for the diversity of life on Earth is not saying that god had no role whatsoever.
Ontology is the reference point from which epistemology is observed. To say otherwise is quite an interesting position. Something has to first pass through the application of ontology before it can have epistemology applied to it unless you learn about things in ways different than every other human I know of.
Ontology breaks down all observances into categories of being, from which an observance is anaylyzed using epistemological notions such as truth, belief, and justification.
Both actually focus on what is considered to be truth, belief, and justification. This is one of the basic concepts in Forensics ;P
Give me just one example of something that falsifies the Theory of Evolution. Please.
Cambrian Explosion. I could provide more if you would like.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2010 3:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Blue Jay, posted 07-01-2010 11:47 PM Practical Prodigy has replied
 Message 57 by Coyote, posted 07-02-2010 11:49 PM Practical Prodigy has not replied

  
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 35 of 60 (567597)
07-01-2010 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by nwr
07-01-2010 3:53 PM


Re: A personal opinion about this thread
Thanks I never expected to get grilled for simply posting my views, has turned into a life of its own a bit outside the scope of why I started thread to begin with

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 07-01-2010 3:53 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by DBlevins, posted 07-01-2010 9:53 PM Practical Prodigy has not replied
 Message 37 by AZPaul3, posted 07-01-2010 11:09 PM Practical Prodigy has replied

  
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 38 of 60 (567614)
07-01-2010 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by AZPaul3
07-01-2010 11:09 PM


Re: A personal opinion about this thread
I'm a state champion swimmer so I might be a nice change of diet although I wont be such easy prey


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by AZPaul3, posted 07-01-2010 11:09 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by AZPaul3, posted 07-01-2010 11:29 PM Practical Prodigy has not replied

  
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 41 of 60 (567627)
07-02-2010 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Blue Jay
07-01-2010 11:47 PM


Re: About Me
Perhaps I worded it wrong lol, a parent can not pass down traits or genetic information it does not carry. Once you factor in the fact that most gene control more than one expressed trait and you have quite a minefield evolution must survive to be viable. I'm not going to even bring up the issues that exist and have been proven in domestication. Even using selective breeding you can not turn a dog into a cat or different organism besides a different version of same organism. Perhaps that is a better explaination. There are limits to genetic variance such as, hybridization barriers, reproductive isolation, etc.
I dont dispute macro-evolution in the sense that an organism can speciate greatly. What I dispute is the fact that one genus of organism can change into another. If anything animals devolve and lose genetic information, fitness, etc usually. This is the reason animals were much larger in the past, even the primate brain has been proven to be bigger in earlier primates.
I would not fit into any version of creationism due to my belief in convergence, speciation, etc. I also only believe in a allagory translation of Genesis, not literal which would also put me in the theistic evolutionist camp. Really like I said the only dispute I have with evolution is genus or higher level than species changes in an organism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Blue Jay, posted 07-01-2010 11:47 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 07-02-2010 4:53 AM Practical Prodigy has not replied
 Message 49 by cavediver, posted 07-02-2010 7:13 AM Practical Prodigy has not replied
 Message 53 by Granny Magda, posted 07-02-2010 8:37 AM Practical Prodigy has not replied
 Message 58 by Coyote, posted 07-02-2010 11:53 PM Practical Prodigy has not replied
 Message 60 by Blue Jay, posted 07-05-2010 10:05 PM Practical Prodigy has not replied

  
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 44 of 60 (567633)
07-02-2010 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Huntard
07-02-2010 1:45 AM


Re: About Me
Well considering I have researched them please post explaination for the ones you claim are explainable just saying is explained is weak position. The last one maybe you should Google him and find out the story...
The ones you claim dont exist I could provide evidence to the contrary...
Edited by Practical Prodigy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Huntard, posted 07-02-2010 1:45 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Huntard, posted 07-02-2010 2:48 AM Practical Prodigy has not replied
 Message 51 by Larni, posted 07-02-2010 7:32 AM Practical Prodigy 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