|
Author
|
Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: OK then:
OliverChant writes: Scientists and geneticists have proven that all humans have one common ancestor. The bible in the Genesis ch.1 account clearly says that Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth and we are their offspring. Even scientists today debate amongst themselves about the theory of humans evolving from apes but if you believe in God's Word which is the Truth then all other explanations of how humans came to existance would be null and void. yahoo.answers.com and if you please stop undermining me because of my age and just answer the questions. Again, no, not quite true. We have many most recent common ancestors depending on which trait is being examined.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 385 of 760 (612687)
04-17-2011 5:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 384 by shadow71
04-17-2011 5:09 PM
|
|
Re: Wright and directed mutation
shadow71 writes: NoNukes writes:
Shadow71, your statement seems pretty close to the conventional thinking, shadow71. So I know I must be misunderstanding you. What do you mean when you say "purfyilng selection eliminates the deleterious mutations". Not sure of the accurracy of this, but I take it to mean that all mutations that are not beneficial are destroyed, or not picked, in some way. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, actually only those that would be fatal get selected out. AbE: and even those can remain if the are not fatal before the critter reproduces. Edited by jar, : AbE:
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 384 by shadow71, posted 04-17-2011 5:09 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Shadow-boxing
Dr Adequate writes: And when it is discovered and shown to exist it will de facto be part of the theory. As pointed out to him in Message 3 of this very thread.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 445 of 760 (613256)
04-23-2011 11:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 444 by NoNukes
04-23-2011 11:44 AM
|
|
The old micro-macro canard.
I think it might be worthwhile to point out that micro and macro are really just human labels. All change is micro as it happens, but humans, looking back over the evidence can point to two or more examples and say "There's enough difference between sample A and sample Z to say that there has been a BIG change and we will call that Macro." If we had all of the samples that actually were the lineage between sample A and sample Z what we would see would be a spectrum and succession of small changes, we would say "Wow, look at all the small (Micro) changes and how sample Z is so different from sample A yet almost identical to sample Y."
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 444 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2011 11:44 AM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 446 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2011 12:28 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 447 of 760 (613258)
04-23-2011 12:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 446 by NoNukes
04-23-2011 12:28 PM
|
|
Re: The old micro-macro canard.
I'm still not sure what would make one mechanism "macro" as opposed to "micro" though, and so far I cannot find anything at least in this thread, that explains just what is so different.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 446 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2011 12:28 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 448 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2011 1:21 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 449 of 760 (613261)
04-23-2011 3:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 448 by NoNukes
04-23-2011 1:21 PM
|
|
Re: The old micro-macro canard.
NoNukes writes: jar writes: I'm still not sure what would make one mechanism "macro" as opposed to "micro" though, and so far I cannot find anything at least in this thread, that explains just what is so different. Shapiro speculates that macroevolution is ecological stress driven mutation mechanisms that generate complex structures. Microevolution is a slower mechanism that uses random mutations. Shadow71 has quoted sections of Shapiro's work using these definitions. Yes, but that is still pretty much just word salad. What keeps micro evolution from creating complex structures. What complex structure has Shapiro identified as being produced by his definition of "macro evolution"? So far I haven't seen any evidence of that presented at all.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 448 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2011 1:21 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 450 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2011 5:40 PM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Epigenetics not a part of modern synthesis?
You might want to look at Message 3. It appears we have not progressed very far since that point.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 471 by molbiogirl, posted 04-26-2011 12:17 PM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 506 of 760 (619859)
06-12-2011 7:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 505 by shadow71
06-12-2011 7:19 PM
|
|
Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
I find it fascinating that absolutely NOTHING has been advanced since Message 3, including the sub-title.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 505 by shadow71, posted 06-12-2011 7:19 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: You have got to be kidding me
Shadow seems to think that if he can put a doubt in the mind of the jury he can overturn science and reality. That idea is simply laughable.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 527 by molbiogirl, posted 06-13-2011 5:51 PM | | molbiogirl has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 533 of 760 (620017)
06-13-2011 8:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 531 by shadow71
06-13-2011 7:53 PM
|
|
Re: You have got to be kidding me
It is not the scientists that molbiogirl is ridiculing, believe me. Read Message 3. If evidence is ever presented that there is any external designer, then maybe ID will become something more than a joke. But it will also mean that whatever that outside influence happens to be will no longer be supernatural, but just more pond scum.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 531 by shadow71, posted 06-13-2011 7:53 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 535 of 760 (620019)
06-13-2011 8:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 532 by shadow71
06-13-2011 7:59 PM
|
|
More misrepresentation.
quote:
Well be prepared there are many more scientific papers coming out that are seriously challenging the Atheistic view of evolution, which states, there cannot be anything but nature that is driving the Universe.
There is no atheistic view of evolution.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 532 by shadow71, posted 06-13-2011 7:59 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 545 of 760 (620035)
06-13-2011 9:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 539 by shadow71
06-13-2011 9:00 PM
|
|
No kidding.
I did not quote myself, I pointed out that you have added nothing that contradicts what I pointed out back in Message number three so the last 539 messages have been irrelevant.
quote:
Do you disagree that these scientlist are in fact questioning the MS as presented?
YUP. I am saying that they are NOT questioning the Modern Synthesis.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 539 by shadow71, posted 06-13-2011 9:00 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 566 of 760 (620451)
06-16-2011 3:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 563 by shadow71
06-16-2011 3:36 PM
|
|
Re: More misrepresentation.
I'm sorry but that is complete and utter bullshit. That Evolution is a fact and the the Theory of Evolution is the ONLY explanation and model that explains what is seen is accepted by almost all major Christian Churches. The theory of evolution was developed over time and Christians were involved in its development. In fact, almost 13,000 US Christian Clergy have signed the Clergy Letter stating "We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge." The Christian position is to reject creationism and affirm the theory of evolution.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 563 by shadow71, posted 06-16-2011 3:36 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 587 of 760 (620618)
06-18-2011 2:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 585 by shadow71
06-18-2011 1:48 PM
|
|
Re: More misrepresentation.
Learn to read. I said "Creationism".
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 585 by shadow71, posted 06-18-2011 1:48 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 600 of 760 (621095)
06-23-2011 3:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 599 by Mazzy
06-23-2011 3:48 PM
|
|
Re: do we need a new ev. theory?
Yup, that's how science as opposed to superstition works; and there is still no other model that has ever been presented or that has any evidential support.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 599 by Mazzy, posted 06-23-2011 3:48 PM | | Mazzy has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2