Evolution results in ignorant zealots. We wouldn't have them otherwise.
Correct.
That's form as a noun. I'm using form as a verb and a synonym for evolve.
They are now.
No matter how much I rant religiously, evolution is still a fact.
It doesn't matter at all. No matter how much faith I have, evolution is still a fact.
It doesn't matter what fools you, evolution is still part of reality.
The evolutionist claim is that evolution is the effect and descent with modification through NS is the cause. There exist no evolutionist publication that shows a scientific model that explains how 'descent with modification through NS' operates using terms found in nature.
You don't get to deicide how I use a term. Proper scholarship and common manners dictates one to ask.
Here is the funny part. You have produce nothing that supports evolution as a fact. All you post is your religious rants. If evolution is true and you had the slightest grasp of it, you might attempt to explain DNA's complex and specified information.
Why the dishonesty? The fallacy has been pointed out and you continue to use it.
Everything above contains zero science. It's all a religious testimonial.I don’t believe Behe cited the cell specifically as being IC. He cited the bacterial flagellum and blood-clotting cascades. However, no one doubts that the cell is immensely complex, and of course we don’t know how the cell evolved. We do know that evolution takes place however — we have a mountain of evidence for evolution taking place at both the genotypic and phenotypic levels — and so arguments that “the cell is too complex to have evolved” are nothing more than arguments to personal incredulity. Such arguments have no purchase. Moreover, by your own words, you reject evolution in toto, despite the mountain of evidence for it, so pointing to the complexity of the cell is really a side issue.
Yes, exaptation, noted above.
You need to simmer down. The only making snide remarks and hurling insults here is you. I have not insulted you even once, and have treated you with respect, though I have not treated with respect your bizarre views. Perhaps you think that anyone who disagrees with you is personally insulting you, but in fact that is not the case.
You’e insulted me plenty of times, including in this very post, and yet it rolls off of me like water off a duck’s back. I expect that fact spurs you on to even greater insults, alas.
I’m not giving you an assignment — I’m in no position to do that. You say you’e been there, done that, but if so, it didn’t take.
“Advantageous” is not a word used in evolutionary theory, because what provides a benefit in one environment may be detrimental in a different one. The concept of an “advantage” is therefore relative and not absolute.
Biologists don’t “believe” in evolution. They have learned that it is a fact, and have built a consilient theory, supported by multiple lines of independent inquiry, to explain that fact. The theory could easily be falsified — find rabbit remains in the Cambrian, for example — but no such falsification has been forthcoming to date.
No scientist today believes in geocentrism, but it’s funny you should raise this, as you must know perfectly well that Galileo was hounded by the church for espousing heliocentrism. But then again, you don’t think Catholics are Christians, so there is that. The point, however, is that petty much everyone, prior to Copernicus, embraced geocentrism, and Ptolemy’s calculations showing geocentrism were embraced for some 1,500 years as a perfectly competent navigation tool. But when it became evident that heliocentrisn was correct, it was religious authorities who tried to suppress this fact.
It does not seem false to me. You seem very, very angry to me.
“Foul-smelling desperation” … no, no personal insults from you. And yes, your anger is there for all to see, including in this very post to which I am responding. And BTW, when it comes to insults, how insulting do you think it is to evolutionary biologists and other scientists to tell them they are all wrong without even attempting to explain why? And how insulting do you think it is to Catholics to tell then they are Christian “in name only?” I was raised Catholic and Catholics would find that charge very insulting as well as demonstrably false.
It does. It has been observed in the lab and in the wild, and we have a mountain of fossil evidence and molecular biological evidence to support it. We have a full account of the transition of land mammal to whale, as noted above, among many other ecxamples.
It does.
Yes. The pattern is called projection on your part. I am merely calmly stating facts, and defending my position, while you are inexplicably ranting and raving at me, including in this very post,
Projection.
Nope, no anger or personal. insults from you!
Projection.
OK.
Actually, they are predominantly neutral.
“Advantageous” is not a biological term, but a term of your own manufacture. A small number of mutations (copying errors) prove to spread through the population via more offspring. Those small numbers in general will be the ones to continue spreading while the deleterious mutations are weeded out, though sometimes even deleterious mutations will go to fixation via drift.
If you say so.
Nope, no personal insults or anger from you.
So you say. You’re wrong. The frame-shift mutation in the nylon-eating bacteria and the subsequent result are well documented.
Of course you are.
Projection.
Projection.
And? Care to tell us.
My objective here is not to argue for a supernatural origin of life, but to prove evolution false.
My decision to follow Jesus Christ was not an emotional epiphany. It was a cerebral experience based on logic and reason. The inch or two that was not covered by logic and reason was then covered by faith.
It is refreshing to have someone who understands what is being posted and or defended. Sadly over the years many posters who had a grasp on the material were replaced by clueless individuals that parrot what they read.Cytochrome?
Simon and Garfunkel, right?
I LOVE that song!!!!!
Seriously, though...
Let me tell you a story...
Before I retired, one of the courses I taught was Grade 12 biology. It included:
- metabolism - cellular respiration, glycolysis, Krebs, ETC, the energy molecules ATP, NADH, FADH2, etc. etc., photosynthesis, Calvin cycle, etc.;- molecular genetics - DNA replication, transcription, and translation, and all the enzymes that controlled these processes;- endocrine pathways - pituitary, hypothalamus, female reproduction enzyme pathways (lactation & labour), thyroid metabolism, liver metabolism;- evolution
So three units that showcased in the immense complexity of human systems, and then a unit for "evolution", which teaches the development of species from mutations. Well, I wasn't surprised when a few years back they moved the evolution unit to Grade 11, and replaced it with Populations in grade 12. It removed the awkward juxtaposition of ideas.
Honest scholarship requires you to post you ideas and then cite for support. In other words = do your homework.
At 100 degrees C, adenine and guanine gave chemical half-lives of only about one year, uracil has a half-life of twelve years, and cytosine a half-life of just nineteen days. Because these half-lives are so short, and because the evolutionary process would take so long especially for natural selection to find functional backbones by trial and error, ‘a high temperature origin of life involving these compounds is unlikely. Also note that, of the four required bases, cytosine has a short half-life even at low temperatures. It would have been especially difficult to synthesize adenine and cytosine at high temperatures and cytosine even at low temperatures.
If evolution is a scientific fact, then there should exist a scientific model, using terms found in nature showing how evolution works. 160+ years since "The Origin of Species" and no one has been able to produce a scientific model. It's all science and terms found in nature free testimonials.
Fraid so, the Big Bang.
Because He doesnt have a beginning. Christianity inspired one of the best revolutions in human history, the American Revolution. It has brought greater good than any other revolution.
Actually you are the one that seems to be feeling unloved.
90% of Christians dont exhibit anitisocial behavior. In fact, Christians that attend church on a regular basis are happier and live longer than people who dont go to church regularly.
Apologists love the Big Bang because we don't completely understand it. Apologists then have a convenient gap of ignorance to stuff God into as a placeholder hoping that our ignorance will continue. Generally, claims like this of God and his miracles tend to put them into situations that are remote in space and time. Like in Star Wars, they are a long time ago and far, far away. As such, they are hard to check out and therefore relatively safe from scrutiny. That way many people can cling to those beliefs knowing that at least they are not proved false which keeps hope alive.
And how do you know that God has no beginning? That's very presumptuous considering that we have no records of your God going back only three thousand years or so.
Did you ever hear of Thomas Paine and his work The Age of Reason? Thomas Paine "sparked" the American Revolution, and he wrote that he detested the Christian religion.
Oh? Have you been reading some of the posts directed at me? So yes, I'm definitely feeling unloved which comes as no surprise to me. Note, though, that I'm not crying about any of it. I just continue to argue for truth, goodness,and reason.
Then the other 10 percent are on this board!
Maybe, but think of all the money we non-church-goers save staying home.
Either the big bang came from nothing, by nothing or through nothing, or it was a supernatural event.
I think that that is basically what happened although the words "from," "by," and "through" probably only have meaning in a universe that already exists. It's possible that we humans are simply not smart enough to fully understand the existence of the universe, and that explains why we have so much trouble wrapping our heads around the Big Bang and its giving birth to the world.
Appealing to "the supernatural" never really explained anything because it just trades one mystery for another. If we sit back and say that God's creating the world explains existence, then we are left with explaining God's existence not to mention his properties, an apparently impossible task. So rather than take a dead end like that I say let's keep trying to solve the mystery of existence using the methods of science.
Again, a "beginning" only makes sense in the context of a universe that already exists. Yes, the cosmos we currently observe had a beginning, but what we see is probably only part of the universe. In other words, the observed universe had a beginning, but a beginning probably doesn't sensibly apply to the cosmos as a whole.
That only applies to the existence of forms. The form of a wooden chair came into existence via a carpenter, her tools, and wood. She didn't make the chair out of nothing but made its form out of wood. As for things whose substance comes into existence, we know of no carpenters to explain their existence.
You keep assuming an extant universe to explain its existence. There is nothing we owe our existence to except in this world. So the universe does not and cannot owe its existence to.anything.
I love this . You claim not to have a clue as to how it all began, but somehow know that it was not supernatural.
Kicking the can down the road and redefining terms does not help you. So the observed universe had a begging but does not apply to the whole universe.
I guess you don’t owe your existence to your parents.
List one thing that came into existence that did not owe its existence to something else. Basic cause and effect.
