|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 1 From: Austin, TX, US Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. | |||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Flyer75 writes:
1) The universe is 13.5 billion years old. Our solar system is 4.5 billion years old. If comets have been proven by all scientists alike to only be able to "survive" for roughly 100,000 years, how are any still around if the universe is 4.5 billion years old?2) What does this have to do with evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Flyer75 writes:
Well, I don;t really know about comets. But I suspect that if scientists hypothesize an "Oort cloud", they probably have some very good reasons to do so. They're scientists afterall, not really into just making some stuff up without any evidence whatsoever.
Well, where do comets come from then??? Why do we still have comets around if they only last 100,000 years or less? When did they form? Just 100,000 years ago and if so, how? Will there be anymore comets when these ones burn up? Or do Oort Clouds really exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Flyer75 writes:
Of course. However the problem with the creationist argument is that they turn this into a false dichotomy:
The absence of proof does not mean that proof does not exist somewhere. It just means we haven't found it yet OR it really doesn't exist. Like you said, time will tell. "Because we haven't discovered the Oort cloud yet, God must've made the earth and everything else 6000 years ago!" I hope you see the flaw with this reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Tram law writes:
No, in fact it is strong evidence for it.
Does DNA disprove evolution? If it can't show that we have a common ancestor?
But it does show that. Check out ERV's or human chromosome 2 (I'm assuming you're talking about humans and other apes here).
f it can't be mapped all the way back to the time when life first began?
What do you mean with this?
What is the DNA evidence to support or disprove evolution?
Plenty, start here
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Tram law writes:
Since I have also no idea what they mean by that either, I can't help any further.
Well, I've heard some people say that because the DNA is incomplete (I don't know what that means) then that means it calls into question the entire theory of evolution, and that it is indeed wrong. But thank you for the link that's the kind of thing I've been looking for.
You're welcome mate. Keep in mind though that the wiki article, as extensive as it is, is still only a quick glance at all the evidence for common descent. If you are ready to dive into the real scientific works that detail this evidence Google Scholar lists 3,010,000 articles concerning evolution, and 385,000 articles concerning Common Descent specifically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello Tram law,
I don't know if you're reply was to me or Dr. Adequate, but yes, the double standard boggles the mind sometimes. Here's a tip, if you want to respond to a specific post, don't use the "general reply" button at the bottom left of the page, use the smaller "reply" button on the bottom right of the post you want to respond to. That makes it easier for everyone to follow, and it will send an e-mail to the writer of the post you are repsonding to that you responded to his post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
well, we're used to it that way here. And because everybody else does it, it becomes confusing when someone doesn't do it, that's all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes:
Sure.
If this is the standard by which a theory is given weight, then I guess these predictions must be plentiful. Can you name a few of these predictions? For more, see this list. And no, these are not all predictions for evolution, as you can see, Tiktaalik is not in that list, as is the nested hierarchy, yet I would list those as predictions for evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes:
You do realize they must be falsifiable predictions, yes? Yours aren't. See, I have made these predictions, so if my theory is correct, this will come true. What would be a falsifiable prediction for your theory is that the more "apple fragrance" one inhales, the more emotional one becomes. That would be a prediction that can be tested.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dennis780 writes:
Well, when I search for "evolution is a fact", I get 4,920,000 hits. When I look for "ID is a fact", I get 633,000 hits. Guess you got some while to go. Or you could realise that this is a bogus argument.
quote:Thats funny. Cause I just searched this: "Evolution facts are found" in google...and got this: No results found for "Evolution facts are found". This is because if you put quotes on, google will only search for websites with that exact phrase. Just because I'm an ID, doesn't mean I don't know how google works. At least your search found one result. ID =1Evo =0 and don't follow conspiracy theories...partly why I don't accept evolution. BAM.
So, you follow the conspiracy theory that evolution is a conspiracy? BAM BAM. Or something...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Tram law writes:
The second question first. Yes, they evolved from reptilian claws. As to their purpose, they are thought to have developed to help critters get over and through small branches more quickly, which was useful to the small mammals we descended from. I guess we never lost them because there is no disadvantage to having them, and of course, I suspect they also serve some protective function to the nerves in our fingertips that help us with feeling.
What evolutionary purpose does fingernails serve? Are they actually a mutation from claws?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dennis780 writes:
Might I suggest you go take that poop and rest afterwards? There is no time limit on responsees, you know. This might stop errors like that from creeping in.
I'm tired, and I have to poop
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dennis780 writes:
Do you agree that all modern domestic dogs are descended of wolfs? If so, does this mean that these ancestral wolfs had all the genetic information necessary to make all domestic dog breeds?
Both. God created each animal after it's kind with enough genetic information to give us the variety we see today, and this information is slowly declining (generally speaking). And dog breeding is an example of genetic loss.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dennis780 writes:
Ok. Would you mind explaining then why those ancestral wolves didn't have the dachshunds short legs? Since those are caused by a dominant allele, which means that if a creature has this allele, it will have short legs. Since the ancestor wolves didn't have those legs, they couldn't have all the genetic information needed to make all dogbreeds we see today. Therefore, this allele is an addition to the DNA.
Yes. I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dennis780 writes:
This means that unlike your previous statements, you now admit that addition can be made to DNA.
Dogs with short legs did not inherit them from wolves. They got a disease similar to the one that causes dwarfism in mice. That neither of us can say.
Yes we can. No remains of shortlegged wolves were fouhnd. The fact that hunting with those legs is very dificult, and would certainly have led to extinction is another powerful indicator.
But even if a wolf did get this disease, it's fair to say in the wild, it would be at an extreme disadvantage, so it and it's line would have more than likely died.
Exactly. Therefore, the wolves from which domestic dogs were bred did not have this allele, ergo it was an addition.
Again, dwarfism is a birth defect, that is passed on in Alleles, which perfectly explains short legged dogs.
It was an DNA insertion that caused this. This means an addition to the DNA you said couldn't happen.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024