12 Jul 05
Originally posted by PhledosPlease stop calling Creationism a theory. You are doing tremendous violence to the language.
When I say that Ive read books on evolution I am not talking about the bible. I have studied both theories differently ...
It must be accepted by the scientific establishment to earn the name theory. Even if the Creationists' "research" could be accepted as having merit (instead of so easily refuted by just about anyone who passed Biology 101), it remains no more than a hypothesis until it successfully accounts for the great masses of data (the facts) that has accumulated through scientific observation.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by Conrau KYour use of these terms would not stand up in a course in Genetics. Did you get a good grade?
If you actually follow what I am saying. I think i do make a distinction between facts, hypotheses, and theories.
I really want to know whether you studied genetics at a bonafide residential college, or through a correspondence course offered by a Bible school. Your initial question reveals a failure of comprehension concerning the basic word theory as used in the theory of evolution.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by WulebgrAccording to scripture God created everything, and with living beings
Well, let's start with what you recognize, then.
Speaking of fish, rainbow trout--the most abundant native trout of the Pacific Northwest--were classified Salmo gairdneri in 1836 by John Richardson, while a similar species on the Kamchatka Peninsula was classified Salmo mykiss by Johann Walbaum in 1792. Both of these classifications relied ...[text shortened]... nd races develop on their own as they adapted to the several streams and lakes that they occupy?
they were told to have off spring according to their kinds. I'd say if
you start with a trout end with a trout you are seeing the Word of
God in action just as easily as you can say evolution in action. As a
matter of fact I’d say it really doesn’t show evolution to the degree
again that causes changes as dramatic as a new organ or system
like the circulatory system coming into existence. Instead it could
be evidence for what occurred after the flood when everything left
the ark and scattered throughout the planet, becoming specialized
by natural selection according the regions they lived in. Doing so
without making such a drastic changes as a blind worm turning into
fly with compound eyes, yet making such changes that specialize
them to the niches they ended up living in.
Kelly
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayNot at all, you have to show me first that these additional
"Natural selection does not create the traits, but it does determine which traits accumulate in a species and which do not. Which organisms survive and which do not does have something to do with DNA. You are mistaken. "
Again, no! Not at all, you have to show me first that these additional
pieces of DNA information for our new and improved systems an ...[text shortened]... t is being
presented as turning a single cell creature into a fish or something
else.
Kelly
pieces of DNA information for our new and improved systems and
organs actually accumulate within DNA to that degree.
No I don't. My statement involved natural selection and traits. I did not talk about "information" - a word which you still use and still fail to clearly define - and I did not talk about "new and improved systems and organs". I also did not say anything about any "degree". I didn't talk about dogs with wings or cells becoming fish in that statement. Now, I know we disagree about whether single cells can evolve into fish, but what does that have to do with the statement you say "again, no!" to?
If dog A's genes make it grow long hair, and dog B's genes make it grow no hair, and the dogs are placed in a very cold environment, dog B will not survive long enough to reproduce. Now, if dog A has puppies, and puppy C has a lot of fat, and puppy D has no fat, then puppy C and his descendents would be more likely to survive and reproduce over time because they'd be less susceptible to extreme cold. The traits of having more fat and more hair would accumulate because dog A and puppy C were naturally selected because of their traits which allowed them to thrive in the cold. It's a very simple concept. I don't comprehend how you can disagree.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by PhledosA law is not something that is definite. For example, Newton's Laws were shown to be wrong by Einstein.
Maybe it is true that 1 single point may enforce an entire theory, but similarly, Evolution has many many weaknesses.
A fact or law, is something that is definate. If it has many holes, then it is not definate.
Bye from Tim 🙂
12 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by PhledosThey didn't see. I don't really know much about blind flatworms, but they exist in caves and such. They don't seem to have problems finding food. They use their other senses to find it. You are exceptionally ignorant if you think all animals need eyes to survive.
I HAVE A BIG QUESTION.
IF WHAT IS STATED HER IS TRUE AND THAT THE EYE DID EVOLVE,
THEN HOW DID OUR ANSCESTORS SEE BEFORE THAT?
HOW DID THEY PICK FOOD, FIND PLACES TO SLEEP, NOT FALL INTO PITS AND MOST OF LIVE?
And dont make up a ...[text shortened]... so, then why is our sence of smell not so powerfull today.
Bye
HOW DID THEY...NOT FALL INTO PITS
They were aquatic worms. They swam in the water. Pits aren't a big danger in the water.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by PhledosWell his official title was Assistant Professor of Biology. Cool guy too. I think he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints though I have never heard of him confirming that explicitly to anyone.
Fair enough.
Your tutor? Did he believe that man evolved under the control of God?
Perhaps he is right. If you agree with him, then perhaps YOU are right.
If this is in fact what he asserts, then I disagree with him. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I am correct.
Regardless, I have just provided evidence to counter your ignorant insinuation that teachers of evolution "100% deteste (sic) God."
12 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by PhledosThen you will have no difficulty presenting your calculations to us, being careful to highlight the sample space so that we can be sure that you have correctly constructed your probability measure. I await evidence of your acumen via presentation, even as I expect a misplaced argument containing a uniform p.m.f.
Done it!!!
Perhaps we are reading on different facts.
Have you read Darwins "Origin of the Species"?
Also if you choose to copy the calculations of another, please provide a citation so that we can consider the truthfulness of the claim. Thank you.
Edit: Oh, yes I have read it, though it has been about eight years since I did so.
12 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by PhledosThe ancestors of insects and vertebrates diverged 650 million years ago.
But where in the fossil record have you seen an evolutionary link between insects and vertabrates?
Bye from Tim
The two major evolutionary lines of coelomate animals-the protostomes and the deuterostomes-are both represented among the oldest known fossils of multicellular animals, dating back some 650 million years.
Therefore the fossils that show this link would be the coelomates that existed prior to 650 million years ago, as well as all the fossils along both lines of ancestry up to insects and vertebrates. I have not myself seen them.
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/elearning/raven6/resources47.mhtml