|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5030 days) Posts: 1 From: Austin, TX, US Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Tram law writes:
It's wrong though. Follow straggler's link in Message 331 to see what an actual neurologist has to say about it.
It's what I've been told and taught all my life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
well, Wiki has an article about it. I suggest you start there and follow the link under "references" for more material on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dennis780 writes:
1. The short legs of the dachshund. A physical atribute not present in it's ancestors, gained by an insertion in it's DNA. I'll make you a deal. If you find me 15 examples of genetic mutation of new functional DNA (coding for any protien, trait, or physical attribute that was not present in past organisms of the species), I will concede the genetic arguement. 14 left.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
3. Lizards develop cecal valve to help digest plants. A physical atribute not present in thier ancestors.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/04/080417112433.htm 12 left.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
As Percy mentioned in Message 156 in the Is there any proof of beneficial mutations? thread:
The evolution of a lighter pelt in Deer Mice. Link 7 left.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Here you go, you'll need a subscription to "Scientific American" to view the entire article, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
frako writes:
No, that's pretty much the point Percy was making. Articles like this will quite often be misinterpreted by creationists (or even lied about), who will say the article proves evolution is wrong. When it doesn't do that at all, it just shows that evolution took a different route than hitherto thought.
am..... i cant see anything in the article that would disprove evolution it only disproves the earlier assumption of when modern birds evolved. i could be missing something cause i cant see the whole article
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
havoc writes:
No, there is also genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer.
"One mechanism" of evolution? Mutation selected by natural selection is the only story out there is it not? How many generations does it take for a cow to change into something else? How many generations did it take dinos to change into birds?
No idea, but probably alot.
How do you falsify the evo dogma?
By gathering evidence that it cannot explain. And it's not dogma.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
havoc writes:
Depends on what you mean by "new" information.
But for creating "new" information mutation is the only choice, correct? I cant think of any conceivable evidence that darwinists would not just simply say "well now we know that evolution can do this".
It's not evolution's fault that you can't think of such a piece of evidence. I'll give you a hint: A pegasus horse would falsify evolution as we know it. It wuold of course not prove creationism, but something about the theory would have to be changed.
Dogma: An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
Becuase it is not held to be absolutely true for one.
How does this not fit with the popular darwinian evolution belief?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
havoc writes:
But true. It was just an example. You could also try to find a crustacean with mamary glands, that would also do it.
So I need to find a mythical creator and that will falsify evolution "as we know it". Interesting choice of words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
havoc writes:
That's because the kind of biology text books that say this are simply starting out simple to not confuse the audience. Physics textbooks start with newtonian physics, even though some of that (gravity comes to mind0 is actually wrong. They don't start out with string theory, this would hopelessly confuse the audience. Biology text books will say that Dinos evolved into birds, flat out and unequivocally. Edited by Huntard, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Coyote writes:
Which was his point. In his mind, we are out to destroy all desent. This was not a statement he made, this was a (wrong) observation he made.
Now that sounds like dogma!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
havoc writes:
Could you show some evidence for this? Or are you just going to assert that this was so?
Every famous mutation such as herbicide and antibiotic resistance once examined at the molecular level has been shown to involve information loss.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
havoc writes:
And all evidence that is now available and will ever be available is consistent with last-thursday-ism. Does that make it true? Consistency means nothing, you need positive evidence.
There is plenty of evidence consistent with a designer. Much we would agree upon, Homology, DNA etc. It’s really more a world view question than evidence based; I mean we all look at the same fossils and draw different inferences.
But your inference does not follow from the evidence, or at the very least violates parsimony. You have a pre-conceived notion of what should be the conclusion, and so shoe-horn everything into that.
Creation is evidence of a creator. You find an arrow head in the desert you know it had a maker even if you know nothing else of the maker.
Only because the arrowhead (created) is so completely different from it's surroundings (not created). Well, not only, but that is a lso a very important reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
That's a list of assertions, not evidence, show the studies please. Also, I see that Nylonase is absent, so this certainly doesn't include "every famous mutation". Also, I'm not sure how this constitutes "information loss". I could just as easily assert that these things were an information gain (there was information added to change the rate of enzyme activity, as a counterpoint to your second item on the list).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024