Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
193 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 192 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,690 Year: 3,336/14,102 Month: 277/724 Week: 35/91 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 676 of 1385 (851834)
05-03-2019 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 620 by edge
05-01-2019 1:44 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
edge writes:

There was precursor life to the Cambrian species. They were the link between earlier life and Cambrian forms.


The Ediacaran fossils were a “precursor“ to the Cambrian, but they can hardly be described as a “link” - there are no fossil links between E and C. For example, where are the links between the Ediacaran organisms (worms, sponges, barnacles, jelly fish) and the fish that appeared in the Cambrian? Ditto for Ediacaran life-forms and insects. My scientific explanation is that aliens took the Ediacaran creatures, seriously fiddled with their DNA and voila!... welcome to new and improved creatures of the Cambrian!

"BSTs (Burgess Shale Types) from the latest Ediacaran Period (eg, Miaohe biota, 550 Ma) are abundantly fossiliferous with algae but completely lack animals, which are also missing from other Ediacaran windows, such as phosphate deposits (eg, Doushantuo, 560 Ma)" - Daley AC, Antcliffe JB, Drage HB, Pates S 2018. Early fossil record of Euarthropoda and the Cambrian Explosion. PNAS, 9 pp.

Except that it is tested virtually every day in paleontological research. And it is supported by new fossil discoveries.

It’s interesting how you’ve conflated “testing a theory” and “finding evidence for a theory”. I think of a “test” as confirming or proving something. Hence, there is no way to test what happened between Fossil A and Fossil B. All you’ve got is a gap between two different fossils, which you fill in with blind faith in evolution. My “aliens did it” explanation can’t be tested either (although it remains the best scientific explanation).

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion" Henry Gee, Nature (magazine), 1999.

According to someone who has literally no background in science, yes?

“It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test” – Colin Patterson, from a letter to Luther Sunderland, 1979.

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed-time story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." Henry Gee, Nature (magazine), 1999.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 620 by edge, posted 05-01-2019 1:44 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by caffeine, posted 05-03-2019 4:17 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 685 by edge, posted 05-03-2019 8:48 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 677 of 1385 (851835)
05-03-2019 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 610 by Stile
04-30-2019 12:23 PM


Stile writes:

No need to discuss his IQ (12)


Oh, if only that were true! My IQ has been evaluated at 9 … which I’m told is “above average” for someone with a fragile, eggshell mind. But I would dearly love to move my IQ into double-digits - 12 would be great.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 610 by Stile, posted 04-30-2019 12:23 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 678 of 1385 (851836)
05-03-2019 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 621 by edge
05-01-2019 1:50 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
edge writes:

And there is an explanation for this


There are several so-called explanations, none of which can be tested, for course. My favorite is the “Oxygen” explanation – apparently, an increase in oxygen in the environment can turn a sponge or a worm into a fish … and in a very short period of time!

Imo, my “aliens did it” explanation trumps all the insipid evolutionary explanations.

There are in fact several lines of evidence explaining why this happened, along with the condition of the fossil record of over half a billion years ago.

If I were an evolutionist confronted by the Cambrian explosion, I would stick my head in the sand of wishful thinking, pseudo-science and denial too. Please consider adopting my “aliens did it” explanation – it explains the evidence so much better than dumb ol’ evolution, which is about 150 years out-of-date.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 621 by edge, posted 05-01-2019 1:50 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 686 by edge, posted 05-03-2019 8:49 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 679 of 1385 (851837)
05-03-2019 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 585 by dwise1
04-28-2019 2:40 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
dwise1 writes:

You presented a YEC claim


Believing man is 6,000-10,000 years old is not dependent on believing in a young earth.

That is a false YEC claim. I specifically called upon you to explain why you make such a false claim … Instead, you went out of your way to avoid answering the question. Like a typical YEC. If you do not want to be seen as a YEC, then stop behaving like one. So answer the question!

Sorry, but I can’t answer your question: I don’t know what you’re talking about. You have discombobulated my fragile, eggshell mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 585 by dwise1, posted 04-28-2019 2:40 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 680 of 1385 (851838)
05-03-2019 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 588 by Phat
04-28-2019 6:19 AM


Re: Any Practical Alternative Theories?
Phat writes:

If we were to throw out the basic theories of evolution...among which you assume is a "Universal Common Ancestor" hypothesis...praytell what would you replace these theories with??!!


1. Some “basic theories of evolution” may be “basic theories of biology” that are useful, so I would have no reason to throw them out. The theory of common descent is both useless and untestable, so it wouldn’t matter if that one was throw out (although many atheists would accuse me of disrespecting their religion).

2. What would I replace the theory of common descent with? I wouldn’t replace it with anything, because no one needs an explanation for the fossil record - it’s nothing more than an irrelevant, historical curiosity. However, I believe the best scientific explanation for the fossil record is that it is the result of genetic engineering performed by aliens (I also believe that within ten years, the “aliens did it” explanation will become the dominant explanation in science, finally replacing the inadequate, nineteenth-century Darwinian story).

OK...lets limit my question to applied science. What specifically would we use as the basis for our new hypothesis as to how applied science works

I would be happy to answer your question … if I knew what the hell you were talking about.

what commonality, if any...humans specifically have that supplants the UCA?

I would be happy to answer your question … if I knew what the hell you were talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 588 by Phat, posted 04-28-2019 6:19 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 681 of 1385 (851839)
05-03-2019 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 589 by RAZD
04-28-2019 8:56 AM


Re: does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus ... yes
RAZD writes:

It would be more accurate to say "a species from one genus evolved into a species of a new genus." The genus did not exist before this new nomenclature was applied.


That what I meant (which should have been bleedin’ obvious).

It's inferred from the evidence showing common ancestry.

It may infer common ancestry via biological evolution … but common ancestry via genetic experiments performed by aliens is a much better explanation. However, there is no way of testing either hypothesis.

You can access the abstract HERE, but the article is behind a pay-wall.

In case, you can pay for it. I’ve actually got better things to spend my money on than evolutionist stories – lamingtons, for example. You may not have heard of lamingtons - they’re native to Australia. A lamington a day keeps the doctor away.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2019 8:56 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 703 by RAZD, posted 05-04-2019 6:34 AM Dredge has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(2)
Message 682 of 1385 (851840)
05-03-2019 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 676 by Dredge
05-03-2019 3:29 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
The Ediacaran fossils were a “precursor“ to the Cambrian, but they can hardly be described as a “link” - there are no fossil links between E and C. For example, where are the links between the Ediacaran organisms (worms, sponges, barnacles, jelly fish) and the fish that appeared in the Cambrian? Ditto for Ediacaran life-forms and insects. My scientific explanation is that aliens took the Ediacaran creatures, seriously fiddled with their DNA and voila!... welcome to new and improved creatures of the Cambrian!

"BSTs (Burgess Shale Types) from the latest Ediacaran Period (eg, Miaohe biota, 550 Ma) are abundantly fossiliferous with algae but completely lack animals, which are also missing from other Ediacaran windows, such as phosphate deposits (eg, Doushantuo, 560 Ma)" - Daley AC, Antcliffe JB, Drage HB, Pates S 2018. Early fossil record of Euarthropoda and the Cambrian Explosion. PNAS, 9 pp.

It's fascinating to watch you at work. You tell us there are no links between Cambrian and Ediacaran fossils. Then in the next sentence you tell us that lots of Cambrian animal groups are found in the Ediacaran. Then to back up your claim you point us to an article arguing there are no animal fossils in the Ediacaran.

No wonder aliens seem the most likely explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 676 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2019 3:29 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 687 by edge, posted 05-03-2019 8:57 AM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 683 of 1385 (851842)
05-03-2019 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 675 by Dredge
05-03-2019 3:19 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
Just google “Ediacaran life-forms” … any mug can do it.

I have.

The difference is that I have actually read the articles.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 675 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2019 3:19 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 684 of 1385 (851843)
05-03-2019 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 674 by Dredge
05-03-2019 3:17 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
Beats me. We will never know when the fossil record is complete.

But you do seem to know that it is complete, no?

That is one reason why you can so glibly say that there are no transitional fossils.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2019 3:17 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 789 by Dredge, posted 05-06-2019 6:10 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 685 of 1385 (851846)
05-03-2019 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 676 by Dredge
05-03-2019 3:29 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
The Ediacaran fossils were a “precursor“ to the Cambrian, but they can hardly be described as a “link” - there are no fossil links between E and C.

Okay, what came before the Ediacaran fauna?

Or are you just assuming that the record is complete and we 'know' that there is nothing in between E and C. The Ediacara forms are more primitive and difficult to put into the Cambrian phyla framework, which is exactly what we would expect of transitional species.

For example, where are the links between the Ediacaran organisms (worms, sponges, barnacles, jelly fish)...

What happened to your barnacles?

... and the fish that appeared in the Cambrian? Ditto for Ediacaran life-forms and insects. My scientific explanation is that aliens took the Ediacaran creatures, seriously fiddled with their DNA and voila!...

First of all, some of these questions have been answered previously.

Second, that's a great idea. Now, how have you tested it? Where is your evidence for the aliens?

welcome to new and improved creatures of the Cambrian!

Again, a great idea, but "voila" will not cut it as a mechanism.

"BSTs (Burgess Shale Types) from the latest Ediacaran Period (eg, Miaohe biota, 550 Ma) are abundantly fossiliferous with algae but completely lack animals, which are also missing from other Ediacaran windows, such as phosphate deposits (eg, Doushantuo, 560 Ma)" - Daley AC, Antcliffe JB, Drage HB, Pates S 2018. Early fossil record of Euarthropoda and the Cambrian Explosion. PNAS, 9 pp.

And the problem is?

It’s interesting how you’ve conflated “testing a theory” and “finding evidence for a theory”. I think of a “test” as confirming or proving something.

Yes it is. But more specifically, when one predicts the location of a particular transitional fossil in a certain age of rocks and the they go out and actually confirm the prediction.

And besides, what better way to test a theory than use it? If it didn't work, we would be forced to accept a paradigm shift at some point, just as phlogiston had to be abandoned as an explanation.

Hence, there is no way to test what happened between Fossil A and Fossil B. All you’ve got is a gap between two different fossils, which you fill in with blind faith in evolution.

And when you did connect the dots pictures as a kid, did you have a problem going from 'dot 1' to 'dot 2'? Maybe there was something in between like a tiny horsey.

My “aliens did it” explanation can’t be tested either (although it remains the best scientific explanation).

When you have some kind of supporting evidence, please let me know. I have no problem going with the known evidence. How about you?

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion" Henry Gee, Nature (magazine), 1999.

Correct. As we have been saying all along, transitional fossils do not define lineage. I thought we'd cleared that up a long time ago.

“It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test” – Colin Patterson, from a letter to Luther Sunderland, 1979.

Ah, good. Another out-of-context opinion.

Want any to the contrary?

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed-time story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." Henry Gee, Nature (magazine), 1999.

I think you already posted this.

I know, those big words are confusing...

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 676 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2019 3:29 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 856 by Dredge, posted 05-08-2019 5:38 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 686 of 1385 (851847)
05-03-2019 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 678 by Dredge
05-03-2019 3:43 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
There are several so-called explanations, none of which can be tested, for course. My favorite is the “Oxygen” explanation – apparently, an increase in oxygen in the environment can turn a sponge or a worm into a fish … and in a very short period of time!

Is that what I said?

And how is millions of years a short period of time?

Imo, my “aliens did it” explanation trumps all the insipid evolutionary explanations.

As I have said, that's a wonderful explanation. What is your evidence for aliens?

f I were an evolutionist confronted by the Cambrian explosion, I would stick my head in the sand of wishful thinking, pseudo-science and denial too.

Yes.

If YOU were.

But I'm starting to think that you are a Poe anyway.

Please consider adopting my “aliens did it” explanation – it explains the evidence so much better than dumb ol’ evolution, which is about 150 years out-of-date.

I will consider it when you show us the evidence for aliens. I think they did that on the X-Files, yes?

Is that your evidence?

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 678 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2019 3:43 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 687 of 1385 (851849)
05-03-2019 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 682 by caffeine
05-03-2019 4:17 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
It's fascinating to watch you at work. You tell us there are no links between Cambrian and Ediacaran fossils. Then in the next sentence you tell us that lots of Cambrian animal groups are found in the Ediacaran. Then to back up your claim you point us to an article arguing there are no animal fossils in the Ediacaran.

No wonder aliens seem the most likely explanation.


Actual science is not easy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by caffeine, posted 05-03-2019 4:17 AM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 345 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 688 of 1385 (851861)
05-03-2019 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 669 by AZPaul3
05-02-2019 6:07 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
Error 1: Genes are not governed by the genome. Genes change and enter/leave the population's genome based on usage and fecundity.

You mean they may die out altogether I would assume. In my understanding that means they join the other gene corpses as Junk DNA. Otherwise how does a gene "enter or leave" the population. It has a space on the DNA chain, right? Does something just snip it off completely? Not that I've ever understood.

Alleles or particular forms of a gene may pair up to make a homozygous product, which if mutations attack it too heavily over time, may actually kill it altogether and effectively kill the whole gene. That's just chance working in mutations, nothing to do with "usage or fecundity," which I assume to be a fantasy explanation either you or something you read made up.

Error 2: The genome does what the genes that make it up produce. When a large proportion of the genes change the genome is different.

Genes only change by which alleles make it up, or by mutations which in most cases do not change what the gene does at all, although in very rare cases could possibly bring about a new version of the gene's expression, but in some cases produces a disease process and in yet other cases simply kills the allele altogether. The basic function of the gene would remain in all cases to be the way a particular trait in the creature is formed. The trait may be unaffected by a mutation, or become a disease, or may just die because the mutated sequence formed can't function at all.

The genome is not a static set of alleles but a constant flow of alleles into and out of the population.

Each gene originally has two forms or alleles. Mutations, which are mistakes and not natural phenomena, alter them, usually/always not for the better. Alleles may be lost to a particular population just because they are few in comparison to other genes which then dominate in that population. That's the only way I can see that there is a 'constant flow of alleles into and out of the population." There are many populations with different sets of alleles. These are new "gene frequencies" or "allele frequencies." The new frequencies are the cause of new traits developing in isolated populations of a given species. Drift is the only way this happens within a given population. the more common way is due to geographic isolation of a portion of the population.

Error 3: New alleles are not built into the genome. Novel combinations of nucleobases alter existing alleles and produce new alleles thus producing new novel proteins. There is no limiting factor that could keep a species genome from the chemical alterations/production of novel alleles. From there the only limiting factor to the use/demise of novel alleles is what those novel alleles do to the fecundity of the resultant phenotype.

The onjly thing that could alter existing alleles and produce new alleles is mutation and that as I've said above is a very iffy process as far as any desirable result goes. I'm always thinking from the creationist view of the original genome and that is an unbroken chain of DNA that is functional at all points, many genes for just one trait in most cases, each having two alleles that in combination all together create a huge variety of variations on that trait. As I think of it, over time mutations have killed off something like 95 percent of the functioning genes, which have become the Junk DNA cemetery as it were in every genome. The amount of variability has thus been severely decreased in that time. Meanwhile all the "new" alleles formed by mutations either do not change the protein product or the trait it produces, or they produce a disease, or they kill the allele and therefore in most cases the whole gene which becomes Junk DNA. You really don't get NEW alleles that do new things at all. You get new sequences that don't change the product or deform it or kill it.

And your whole scenario is pure fantasy or speculation, you have NO evidence for it. Like the ToE in general it's just wishful thinking.

You already acknowledge micro-evolutionary change. Slightly longer/shorter sharper/duller teeth, slightly longer/shorter stronger/weaker arms/legs. The same variation exists for every trait you care to mention. When populations split along geographic lines or into new habitats these variations are exacerbated by the environment leading over many thousands of generations to an organism so drastically different from its ancestors as to be called a different species.

No, the form of the traits that develop can't exceed whatever the limits are that are already built into the genome. You can get some pretty dramatic changes from geographic isolation but only within what the gene does in combination with all the other genes that affect the new phenotypes. And this has nothing whatever to do with the "environment" as you claim -- that is classic ToE but it's false -- the changes are all due to reproductive isolation. Darwin got dramatic changes in his pigeons by reproductively isolating each generation, meaning by selecting for mating the birds with the trait he wanted to develop, but he never got anything but a drastic variation in a particular trait. If he bred for large chests he got larger and larger chests and the same with whatever other trait he chose to select for. He never got anything but a variation on the chest of the bird or whatever other trait he chose to breed. This principle is amply demonstrating in any breeding program for any animal. No environmental factor has any part in forming the dramatic changes you can get just by selecting a particular set of traits or a single trait to breed. If you get a mutation somewhere in the lineage you may choose to incorporate it, emphasize it or breed it out. But otherwise the process is just a matter of reproductive isolation of the chosen trait. This is also how the large heads and jaws of the new population of lizards developed in reproductive isolation on the island of Pod Mrcaru over a mere thirty years. Evos may fool themselves that they formed due to something in the environment but all that had to happen is having more alleles for that trait in the overall population, that is, a gene frequency different in that respect from that of the parent population they came from, that over those thirty years of breeding among themselves in isolation brought out those large heads and jaws.

Further, as that new population differentiates, splits, and differentiates still more over millions of years, the resultant phenotypes are so different from the original population that we classify these as a new genus. And the process continues without the limits you impose (and cannot show to exist).

Nice presentation of the evo belief system but that is not what happens and in fact it couldn't happen. All that ever happens is new combinations of existing alleles and that alone, depending on the amount of genetic variability **** {ha ha ha, the mad baby political censor can't differentiate between different uses of a word} REMAINING in the population, can continue to produce some dramatic new phenotypes. It won't take long, however, in the usual scenario, for the variability to reduce to the point that you can't get any new variations at all. You've reached the point of "purebred" where most of the genes are homozygous for the salient traits. If the reduction in variability has not produced too great a disease element in the population, which usually happens with purebreds as you know, then that population may continue to produce offspring. The cheetah is an example although it does have a disease process that compromises its ability to reproduce: it can't produce anything but a cheetah with its severely limited genetic variability however. And the elephant seal seems to have enough vigor despite its drastically reduced genetic variability to go on producing new generations that are near clones of each other. That's what happens in any series of geographic selections too: the fewer individuals that are the founders of a population, or the condition of the genetic variability among whatever number of founders there may be, the less and less genetic variability you are going to get. You cannot possibly get from this condition to some hypothetical population millions of years from now. All you are getting is reduced genetic variability and that's all you can ever get. If there is vigor in the species nevertheless it may go on reproducing and increasing in numbers anyway for many generations, but not over millions of years.

From a Triassic rodent differentiating, splitting and differentiating more we get dogs, cats, moose, bear and whales after 200 million years.

Can't happen, AZ, it's genetically impossible as I've outlined above and many many times on many other threads as well. It's sheer Evo Fantasy. All you can ever get is new combinations of the existing alleles, with the occasional mutation thrown in which does more harm than good in most cases. Alleles for the traits of a Triassic rodent can't become alleles for dogs, moose, bear and whales, and the rodent would be extinct long before it produced anything but a rodent anyway, and since it's going to start producing genetically depleted rodents over time it may become extinct long before it gets to ten thousands of years let alone hundreds of millions.

ABE: You think you answered my question but you didn't. As usual you merely asserted the theory of how it would happen but you did not explain how it could happen genetically which was my question. You have to explain how you get from that rodent genome to, oh pick one, a dog genome. Show how you get genetically from any given rodent trait to a dog trait of your choice. What specific genetic changes have to happen in the genome? And these would have to be produced by mutations, wouldn't they? How do you get a mutation to change the function of a gene instead of not changing it at all or creating a disease or killing it? You've got to spell out the sequence of changes required and explain how they could happen genetically /abe

And that's just mammals. The same for all the other life systems from insect to reptilians ... and this on steroids for bacterium.

You have been told how it all works. You no longer have recourse to say your question has not been answered.

You disagree with the answer, of course, but that is based on your religious motivation not any demonstrable facts.

There are no limits over time to changes in alleles, genes, genomes. Micro-evolution operating in disparate environments times millions of generations produces everything.

Pure fantasy, AZ. You've given the ToE belief system and I've explained why it can't happen, and it has nothing whatever to do with my religion but just with thinking through how variations develop within the genome of any species and can't form anything outside that genome. I have to assume you will continue to impose your fantasy scenario on me anyway, way it goes, but you are wrong and I've said here how you are wrong.

You're smart. May I suggest that you use your smarts to try really hard to follow my thinking here.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 669 by AZPaul3, posted 05-02-2019 6:07 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 689 by DrJones*, posted 05-03-2019 1:23 PM Faith has responded
 Message 696 by Taq, posted 05-03-2019 3:31 PM Faith has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2177
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 689 of 1385 (851863)
05-03-2019 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 688 by Faith
05-03-2019 1:16 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
Otherwise how does a gene "enter or leave" the population.

a gene enters the population when a member of that population has that gene. A gene leaves the population when no members of the population has that gene.

Mutations, which are mistakes and not natural phenomena,

mutations are natural phenomena, they do not require external influence to occur.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 688 by Faith, posted 05-03-2019 1:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 690 by Faith, posted 05-03-2019 1:30 PM DrJones* has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 345 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 690 of 1385 (851864)
05-03-2019 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 689 by DrJones*
05-03-2019 1:23 PM


Re: Just to interject the YEC floodist view
I don't see how any gene could just disappear from a population, it would have to be snipped out of the DNA chain. What really happens is that it's not expressed in the new population because other genes dominate.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 689 by DrJones*, posted 05-03-2019 1:23 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 691 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2019 2:06 PM Faith has responded
 Message 693 by DrJones*, posted 05-03-2019 2:19 PM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021