Whatsisface
Well-known member
As if you are so polite.wrong again... try asking politely and clearly ... I'm sure that will help
As if you are so polite.wrong again... try asking politely and clearly ... I'm sure that will help
It hasn't helped so far.wrong again... try asking politely and clearly ... I'm sure that will help
If you think evolution says humans descended from dolphins, you really have a bad misunderstanding of it.Wow how badly you misrepresent science... and good science at that but really poor interpretation. so we are closely related to dolphins too much more than we are to cows , horses...pigs...ect... are you trying to correlate commonness means descent ?..cause you can't show anywhere in you darwinian coloring book where humans descended from dolphins.
![]()
Human and dolphin genomes
By Charlotte Dudal - 42832845 Humans and dolphins, what do these two animals have in common? You might think that the only thing t...biol1020-2012-1.blogspot.com
I have no idea what you are talking about.Co-option is opposed to evolution sorry you pretend otherwise...maybe if you could re-read your own link on it. Take notes and then come on back and tell us how badly co-option butchers evolutionary theory... since it requires design up-front ... and it also posits massive and rapid development of species and body parts - (if one understands Evolutionary theory like you claim to .. you can see the fallacy in one one of those two thoughts).... but hey... both are just theories that can't co-exists.... and now you know (hopefully)
Who are you quoting? What is the context?Again for the good readers:
“Evolution and common descent have failed to explain how the original vitamin C genehow the original vitamin C gene could have arisen. In fact they fail to explain how any protein could have arisen. They have also failed to explain how all of biology could have arisen."
By shot down, you mean ignored, presumably.All of which was shot down as dead end species cant you point to just one thing that has not be shot down yet?
I am claiming the paper you linked to says this:Again you falsely make claims you can't back up: ignoring the massively peer reviewed study by several top scientists:
“We provide several lines of evidence supporting a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models in which dog lineages arise separately from geographically distinct wolf populations”
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016
No I do not. I have never said that.Oh boy... you somehow now think that mathematics and science are separate....
So now you are mocking something you are imagine I might say next? To be fair, that is little different to mocking things you are pretending I said.next silly thing you might say is that it was not science it was the microscope that showed XX.... too funny... one has to wonder sometimes about how someone can come to conclusions that are so disjointed from reality.
As I said last time: Of course I said that, and I stand by it.You clearly stated that 'science is not proven' or was it no science is proven.... care to admit that much?
Wrong.Why do you keep misrepresenting ID Pixie? you failed to back up the false claim you made of 99%.
I love how you start by saying we should not blindly accept what the majority believe, but then end by saying I should just accept what these "good scientist" say. Are you not aware of the inherent contradiction there? I guess not.I bet there were 99% that believed the world was flat too but better science came through .. I bet some touted that 99% believed the earth was the center of the universe....but better science came through ... and possibly 99% believe the sun was the center ...but better science came through... you seem to be touting 99% while many good scientist are bailing from it. .. good for better science!!!!
Why do you reject better science Pixie?
I am not sure where this comes from, given you seem to be responding to my comment about how biologists who accept evolution over number those who reject it a hundred fold. We have not discussed loss of function at all.Why would evolution take away eyes of certain creatures? isn't evolution something progressive and beneficial to creatures... yet there are examples of evolution actually taking away functioning eyes...would that be beneficial in some way to actually develop eyes ...then ...un-develop them?
Only if you ignore all the other evidence from genetics, biochemistry etc. And indeed the fossils that we do have, over a million of them.unfortunately it exposes the weakness of evolution. ... "more specifically, gaps in the fossile record" clearly exposes evolution to begging for great faith that maybe someday they can find something to support their faith. Just admit it.. it takes a great deal of faith to be an evo-devo today with so little proofs. Faith is not a bad thing
My ten is authors of three peer reviewed papers I happened to cite. Show me the papers your 1k have published. Why are you not citing them? The one science paper you have cited was written by biologists who accept evolution. If we look at authors cited by either of us, turns ouyt the numbers are dozens who accept evolution to ZERO who reject it. You lose again Martin.Wrong once again .. your 10 vs my 1k is nowhere near your make-believe 99%...just too funny you cling to such comedy.
this is getting so so easy to point out how wrong you still are. you beg for co-opting which destroys darwinian evo..... you ignore that the eye showed up in so many different species in such a short time frame.... it really exposes those to come up with some alt reasoning ... and the best you have done so far is front-loading.... which destroys evolution...hmmm
What on Earth are you talking about Martin?LOL again you lack the understanding to even qualify anything as science when you try to talk out of both sides of your subjective opinion...
The simple fact is that at every point I have found good science to back up my position.you believe evolution...yet you know you can't defend it so you conjure up theories that are counter to evolution that are actually quit well researched and pulling many scientist from the darwin view that you so dearly defend .... up until a few days ago when you started backing front-loading... just too predictable. either way you are still at a loss for how life exists....or any gene exists... etc.
Here:goodness.. why do you misstate and misrepresent so much? Is it purposeful or do you just not comprehend what is posted?... please back up your false accusation where i have ever stated that the eye was developed from the tree of life ( yet another false darwin concept scientists have proven) .. no way would i every sign on to such a falsehood/anti-truth than the 'tree of life' silliness. please post where I stated support for it... otherwise quite the falsehoods.
Actually we do not have time machines. I did point this out in a previous post, but to be frank, it should be common knowledge.you have your time machine and yet you still can't find your missing links? wow..who would of expected that one... Oh right ID. deal with it.
That is a very naive view. Rabbits have plenty of predators, and yet are hugely successful, and have become a pest in Australia. There are ways of surviving as a species, even when there are a lot of predators. A female sturgeon lays up to three million eggs - though not all will be fertilised - so they survive even high predation rates.Wow... the sturgeon has plenty of predators...mostly when younger..or the first 1/3 of it's life then fewer predators once it gets much larger.
You know you are taking what I said out of context. Do you consider that to be honest?You are correct... there is nothing in evolution .
And yet I already answered it.especially the point where a species has to keep evolving.... but one would argue that if evolutionary pressures got fish to form legs .... then wings ...then fins again one would think that why would not a 300 million year old species not evolve when it has all the genes needed to evolve?...why would evolution just turn off ? the sturgeon is rather remarkable... since it is a great example of why evolutionists can't answer real questions.
How many times have I asked you to:So Pixie.... 3rd time asking this ... care to step up? how does your evo view explain how life formed... or even how a simple gene formed...? lets see if you are up to answer it? I keep answering your Qs... maybe you can't answer mine so you hide.... guess we'll see. maybe it's time to just keep posting this question over and over and over till you come up with something - I'll accept that 'you don't know....your belief system does not know' ... that will suffice
give your question a try... who knows? if you really want an answer (and you seem to be stubbornly sticking to wanting an answer) just ask.It hasn't helped so far.
Incorrect again on so many levels. humans did not descend from dolphins but you seem to believe commonness equates to descent. Proven wrong over and over and over.... because your precious evolution is wrong..as many scientists keep bailing from itHow Close Are We To Chimps?
If you think evolution says humans descended from dolphins, you really have a bad misunderstanding of it.
Quite how someone who thinks evolution says humans descended from dolphins can accuse me of misrepresent science defies belief!
And I see no attempt to explain why chimp biochemistry is so very close to human biochemistry. Why is that? Because creationism is wrong!
As expected. But you first need to under stand Evolutionary Theory - and the try to square that with Co-option theory... they don't correlate.... as the latter is about fast/rapid changes from front-loaded design...the former is the opposite. you are welcome.Co-option
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Darwin was not a scientist..not even close and said many silly things that have long been proven false. Heck even darwin doubted his own theory due to the lack of evidence....and continued lacking of it does not helpDarwin discussed co-option in chapter VI of The Origin of Species; I quoted him in an earlier post. To suppose it is not part of evolution shows how desperate your situation is.
I am quoting Dr. Cornelius G. Hunter B.S and M.S. in aerospace engineering, Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational BiologyThe Vitamin C Pseudogene
Who are you quoting? What is the context?
the reason you flounder so badly when put to the test is because your precious theory is garbage.... and why more and more scientists keep bailing from it. Better science it kicking it to the curb.And why are you not addressing the topic? This is about the vitamin C pseudogene. Again and again you dodge. Why is that? Because creationism is wrong!
With regards to how the original vitamin C gene, I do not know. Maybe evolution cannot explain it. Can creationism offer us any insight? Do take us through the science that creationists have done to support their claim.
Oh, wait. There is none. Why is that? Because creationism is wrong!
by shot down I mean every transitional fossil presented thus far has been shot down. leaving faith-filled darwinists to cling to other theories ..as their pews slowly empty.Abundance of Evidence
By shot down, you mean ignored, presumably.
only in your mind... your agenda seems unable to grapple with the conclusion of the study that they suspect a dog/wolf ancestor but the have no evidence of one... can you prove your premise? show me the ancestor then.Dogs are Descended From Wolves
I am claiming the paper you linked to says this:
As humans expanded out of Africa into Eurasia, they came into contact with gray wolves and, through a complex and poorly understood process, dogs emerged as the first human companion species and the only large carnivore to ever be domesticated.
Anyone can click the link and confirm that that is the case.
The paper you keep citing agrees with me that dogs evolved from wolves.
A Proof in Maths Does Not Prove Science
No I do not. I have never said that.
sad you think that science is not mathematically bound in most of it's constructs. We use mathematical proofs to confirm or deny many axioms and theories.What I dispute is your claim mathematical proofs used by/in science count as proving science in many cases.
then again you need to read up on the Higgs boson... confirmed to exist by scientific experimentations (particle collision) and hypothesized through decades of mathematical proven equations predicting it. The math behind particle acceleration and subsequent construction of predicted accelerator proved the particle existed.What I dispute is your claim mathematical proofs used by/in science count as proving science in many cases.
it might be worth your time to understand the math (at a very high level of course) the equations required to define a particle that fit the standard model to a 'T' but in all of science was never detected..only hypothesized.Again and again you dodge my question: What single example of a mathematical proof used by/in science can you find that counts as proving science?
not even close... I openly admit that there are thousands of scientists that still cling to evolution.... but what you lack is the ability to admit that there are well over a thousand that don't.. .and those bailing from evolution keep growing... due to better science.Biologists Accept Evolution
Wrong.
I have backed up that figure several times now. Each time you ignore it because you do not like it, and to be frank, it is increasingly making you look dishonest. But that does not make it false.
Too funny.. I only point out the facts to you ..and you run from them.. you misrepresent things often...like here - I have never asked you to accept what the many scientists that bailed from evolution say... just to at least admit there are many scientists baling from evolution. - should of been an easy thing to grasp. please stop misrepresenting things.I love how you start by saying we should not blindly accept what the majority believe, but then end by saying I should just accept what these "good scientist" say. Are you not aware of the inherent contradiction there? I guess not.
again with your misrepresentations... there are openly over a thousand dissenters... and growing. ..better science my friend ..Your claim that we should blindly follow what these few hundred dissenters from Darwinism say is nonsense because for every dissenter from Darwinism there are over a hundred biologists who accept evolution.
I openly accept mainstream science why do you accept unproven theories? Got Faith? Amen sister.Why do you reject mainstream science, Martin? Because of your religious beliefs, and not because of the science.
LOL.... good try and sure that might explain some cases, but:Loss of Eyes
I am not sure where this comes from, given you seem to be responding to my comment about how biologists who accept evolution over number those who reject it a hundred fold. We have not discussed loss of function at all.
But okay, some cave-dwelling animals have lost their eyes, because they live in an environment where eyes are of no use. Article here.
![]()
How This Cave-Dwelling Fish Lost Its Eyes to Evolution
Living with little food and oxygen in the dark, the Mexican blind cavefish had to get creative to survive.www.nationalgeographic.com
Suppose Santa Claus turned out to not be real; what would explain the appearance of presents under the Christmas tree?Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?
Well, indeed.Suppose Santa Claus turned out to not be real; what would explain the appearance of presents under the Christmas tree?
I did. Three times. After that, I figure the respondent is just deliberately evading.give your question a try... who knows?
So have you now realised you were wrong when you wrote that evolution says humans and descended from dolphins ("cause you can't show anywhere in you darwinian coloring book where humans descended from dolphins."). I guess that is some progress.Incorrect again on so many levels. humans did not descend from dolphins but you seem to believe commonness equates to descent. Proven wrong over and over and over.... because your precious evolution is wrong..as many scientists keep bailing from it
If you expected me to not understand you, I would have thought the onus was on YOU to explain better.As expected.
Given you recently thought evolution says we are descended from dolphins, and you apparently think front-loading is compatible with front-loading, you are hardly an authority here.But you first need to under stand Evolutionary Theory - and the try to square that with Co-option theory... they don't correlate.... as the latter is about fast/rapid changes from front-loaded design...the former is the opposite. you are welcome.
Actually Darwin is regarded as one of the greatest scientists of all time, having made a huge contribution to science that is still just as important today as it ever was.Darwin was not a scientist..not even close and said many silly things that have long been proven false. Heck even darwin doubted his own theory due to the lack of evidence....and continued lacking of it does not help
What better science?the reason you flounder so badly when put to the test is because your precious theory is garbage.... and why more and more scientists keep bailing from it. Better science it kicking it to the curb.
Again you stoop to quote-mining. Disappointing, Martin. You make so many false accusations of misrepresenting, but clearly you have no problem doing that yourself. Did Jesus not say something about hypocrites? Do you just ignore that too?Pixie is correct "maybe evolution cannot explain it" because it is garbage.
At last a half-way attempt to say something of substance.then begs if there is any science to back up an ID perspective: and there is, here is just one: molecular biologist Dr. Peter Borger
..." fifty percent of the mutations in the primate and guinea pig exon X sequence are identical. In addition, the guinea pig exon X region shows a mutation at position 97, the location in the primate genomes where a deletion took place. These shared features could not have resulted because guinea pigs and primates shared a common ancestor. Instead, they must reflect nonrandom, reproducible changes."Pseudogenes and the Origin of Humanity: A Response to the Venema Critique of the RTB Human Origins Model, Part 7
For over a month, I have been responding to biologist Dennis Venema’s criticisms of the RTB human origins model. (See my previous posts: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, and part 6.)reasons.org
Again, I do not think you know what evolution actually says. This is common with creationists, as this article in Scientific American tells us.by shot down I mean every transitional fossil presented thus far has been shot down. leaving faith-filled darwinists to cling to other theories ..as their pews slowly empty.
And yet the article clearly says:only in your mind... your agenda seems unable to grapple with the conclusion of the study that they suspect a dog/wolf ancestor but the have no evidence of one... can you prove your premise? show me the ancestor then.
I do keep confirming my position that science is not proved. However, it does not follow that maths cannot be used as a tool in science.where Pixie states: "And again, no science is "proved". ".... so that seems that you don't believe math is part of science...since science can't be proven. hmmmSuppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?
I'm actually the one who was explaining falsification a few posts ago... I understand it quite clearly and why your example really does nothing to disprove darwinian evolution. Great, we agree it does nothing to disprove Darwinian evolution. However, we were talking about falsification. The...forums.carm.org
Love that you say "we" as though this is something you have any clue about.sad you think that science is not mathematically bound in most of it's constructs. We use mathematical proofs to confirm or deny many axioms and theories.
No, Martin. The experiment showed it existed, not the maths.then again you need to read up on the Higgs boson... confirmed to exist by scientific experimentations (particle collision) and hypothesized through decades of mathematical proven equations predicting it. The math behind particle acceleration and subsequent construction of predicted accelerator proved the particle existed.
It might be worth your while thinking though what you post.it might be worth your time to understand the math (at a very high level of course) the equations required to define a particle that fit the standard model to a 'T' but in all of science was never detected..only hypothesized.
Get it right, Martinnot even close... I openly admit that there are thousands of scientists that still cling to evolution....
So you are back-pedaling from when you said thousands?but what you lack is the ability to admit that there are well over a thousand that don't.. .and those bailing from evolution keep growing... due to better science.
Will you admit over one hundred thousand biologists accept evolution?Too funny.. I only point out the facts to you ..and you run from them.. you misrepresent things often...like here - I have never asked you to accept what the many scientists that bailed from evolution say... just to at least admit there are many scientists baling from evolution. - should of been an easy thing to grasp. please stop misrepresenting things.
And over one hundred thousand biologists who accept evolution. Because it is real science.again with your misrepresentations... there are openly over a thousand dissenters... and growing. ..better science my friend ..
Can you summarise why they think this is a problem for evolution. I am not getting it.LOL.... good try and sure that might explain some cases, but:
![]()
Hagfish Eyes Debunks Claim Eye Evolution
Discovery of sophisticated eyes in a fossilized hagfish has dethroned the modern blind hagfish as the only observable intermediate form in eye evolution.answersingenesis.org
This appears to be your opinion of ignorance of your own Theory. AGAIN, i get to help you out and expose you for your lack of knowledge. (as addressed previously) your theory of evolution requires long slow random mutations (not guided..not quick) but step by step randomly inherited traits over long spans where each trait can then lead to other traits.An abundance of Evidence (Again)
Over a week ago a added on to my '100's of biologists post and pointed to over a thousand scientists.:Biologists Accept evolution (Again)
Why do you fear the constant bailing out by scientists in many fields? Better science is leading to better outcomes and as I posted about the 100's (could be 500 or 900 or just 200) biologists that don't support.
Sorry but I have to LOL at that one... too funny. Your ability to google is good but your comprehension is lacking as I exposed about you over and over. And (again) for the record I don't believe humans descended from dolphins...but your theory of common descent does... you see by believing that just because we are so similar to dolphins DNA we must have been related in some mythical (unproven and unprovable ) 'tree o life'.What is a "subjective opinion" anyway?
I think it is apparent to any observer that my knowledge of science far exceeds your own. You are, let us remember, the guy who thinks evolutions says humans are descended from dolphoins ("you can't show anywhere in you darwinian coloring book where humans descended from dolphins").
Saying that you have argued against front-loading but yet you argue for "Co-option" and "preadaptation". This means the use of pre-existing genes. Slowing it down for you just a bit ..... a pre-existing gene needs to be in place before it can be co-opted.... that is front-loading.I have consistently argued against front-loading.
what is in stark contrast is you continued begging for answers when you avoid questions asked of you.... hope that changes.This is in stark contrast to yourself who has repeated fail to:
(ahem...I repeat for clarity incase you missed it above)What Does Front-Loading Mean?
Correct... you keep trying to use some time machine that does not exist .. not sure why.Time Machines
Actually we do not have time machines. I did point this out in a previous post, but to be frank, it should be common knowledge.
Sturgeon
Question for you: . why do you keep dodging the question? Do you think that is being honest? Maybe you don't understand the question so let's restate it.Question... why
there are many theories that try to scientifically do this but they mostly fail.. the best theory is ID and the front-loading of what a species needs. After all science is having a tough time of getting you an explanation....Outstanding Questions... So Many Of Them
How many times have I asked you to:
- Explain the distribution of eye types amongst different species
We have many mutation genes shared across many different species... the vit-C mutation is no different, it can't show common descent just as the 1000s of gene differences can't prove uncommon descent... Guinea pigs share that mutation too and we did not evolve from them either.
- Explain the vitamin C pseudogene; why the same error in all primates
the Higgs boson particle was proven to actually exist through several scientific experiments. The math for the existence of such particle was only on paper...but through physics and actual experimentation the particle was proven to exist.
- Give one an example of a mathematical proof that proves some science
Mech for what? please be clear on what you are asking as you seem to assume much and I don't want to assume here.
- Give the mechanism ID proposed
It looks like this is just another example of where design is actually the better choice for the slight differences:
- Explain the pattern of differences in cytochrome-c
this was explained before:
- Explain why dolphins are genetically closer to people than to fish
nobody is refuting that they are so different genetically at a high level. What matters is the differnces. But when you look at the differences as in gene expression/chromosomes...you see why we can fly planes and chimps can excel at hunter biden artwork. Design posits commonness and even shows it.
- Explain why chimps are genetically closer to people than to gorillas
We have ample science that proves the coding behind DNA and the genome expressions. there are just too many failures (some of which were pointed out above) in your evo-devo faith system.
- State your own beliefs with regards to creation
Over a week ago I stated 100's in reference to biologists however, I also posted a link that day: https://thenewamerican.com/over-1-000-scientists-openly-dissent-from-evolution-theory/
- Explain why you accused me of misrepresenting you when I said hundreds when you knew you had said that
Now you have several questions and problems you need to address..do YOU care to step up? (I won't inject immaturity as you do).Do YOU care to step up? Of course not. You are so clueless about evolution you think it says humans evolved from dolphins. You are so clueless about your own beliefs you do not understand that front-loading contradicts special creation.
It is my opinion that you are deeply ignorant of the theory of evolution, given you believe it says people are descended from dolphins.This appears to be your opinion of ignorance of your own Theory.
We all know that. Even you it appears.AGAIN, i get to help you out and expose you for your lack of knowledge. (as addressed previously) your theory of evolution requires long slow random mutations (not guided..not quick) but step by step randomly inherited traits over long spans where each trait can then lead to other traits.
You say "only" but the fact is that this covers a huge amount of evidence.The only evidence that Darwinists such as yourself can claim evidence is either through the fossil records... or through reproducible experiments.
Not so.Now since there are no successful experiments that generate a new species... their weight must rely on fossil records... and the so called 'abundance of evidence'.
And that disproves evolution how?And as shown before any transitional fossil ever presented here was of a dead-end species...or suspected different species.
I find it telling that you can only find blogs to support your position while I am posting peer-reviewed science papers. If all those scientists are leaving evolution so fast, where are all the papers they have published? At least one creationist organisation has its own journal; can you find nothing there?If I recall there was even an attempt to post a transitional 'bird' (or potential bird)...it's easy to see the fossil picture and think that is a transitional fossil...but then the science and theory break apart as there was no predecessor, and no ancestor to that species... it showed up and died off as a dead end. In fact I am unaware of any evidence of one bird evolving from another bird... one would surely be able show it since ...well .. er... it's so abundant.
In Search of Evolution
(Posted on behalf of Steve Hays.) I'm continuing my quest for evolutionary evidence. Thus far my expedition has taken me to Mayr, Ridley, ...triablogue.blogspot.com
Good for you. Over a thousand assorted scientists and engineers agree with you.Over a week ago a added on to my '100's of biologists post and pointed to over a thousand scientists.:
![]()
Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American
Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a "Dissent" statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's evolution theory. by Alex Newmanthenewamerican.com
This is very confused; I am not sure what you are trying to say. You seem to want to put across the idea that it just my opinion, and that seems to be damaging your ability to use English!I keep asking you for the darwinian mechanism that you feel must 'subjectively' be present in so many of your 'claimed' evidences for common descent... you keep dodging... you don't know .. and the reason you don't know is because your theory has no objective provable mechanism.... evolution relies on "subjective reasoning" since it can't be repeated..it must conjure up opinion to fit the gaps.
I never said you believe it. I said you believe evolution says it, as you have just confirmed.Sorry but I have to LOL at that one... too funny. Your ability to google is good but your comprehension is lacking as I exposed about you over and over. And (again) for the record I don't believe humans descended from dolphins...but your theory of common descent does...
Co-option is when the gene pre-exists, but is used a different purpose.Saying that you have argued against front-loading but yet you argue for "Co-option" and "preadaptation". This means the use of pre-existing genes. Slowing it down for you just a bit ..... a pre-existing gene needs to be in place before it can be co-opted.... that is front-loading.
I am not sure what you are asking. An organism can co-opt a protein for another purpose if the protein fits that purpose.Question for you.... how can an organism co-opt an existing gene..and use it for an entirely different function(or heck slightly different one)? More specifically... what directs that gene expression...is it the species..or the gene coding/expression that dictates the new use?
I earlier said:What Does Front-Loading Mean?
The question was: What Does Front-Loading Mean?(ahem...I repeat for clarity incase you missed it above)
Saying that you have argued against front-loading but yet you argue for "Co-option" and "preadaptation". This means the use of pre-existing genes. Slowing it down for you just a bit ..... a pre-existing gene needs to be in place before it can be co-opted.... that is front-loading (the need of a gene long before it is ever used...it gets front loaded and later used...sometimes not).
So either you have no clue about what you are arguing for or against or you just like to argue about things you know little about.
Question for you.... how can an organism co-opt an existing gene..and use it for an entirely different function(or heck slightly different one)? More specifically... what directs that gene expression...is it the species..or the gene coding/expression that dictates the new use?
That is simply not true.Correct... you keep trying to use some time machine that does not exist .. not sure why.
Says the guy who is pretending I am trying to use a time machine. Do you think that is honest?Question for you: . why do you keep dodging the question? Do you think that is being honest?
As I said before, the sturgeon survived because it is successful, so had no pressure to adapt.Maybe you don't understand the question so let's restate it.
What is the mechanism that stopped functioning in the sturgeon 200+ million years ago that prevented it from evolving to anything but a sturgeon? It has all the genes needed for legs... lungs... etc.. but it never budged. Do you think that no type of sturgeon ever went extinct? why would evolution allow that when it clearly could of sprouted legs?
You say front-loading is the best explanation, then link to the web site of Answers in Genesis, who believe God created each "kind" 6000 years ago; a very different scenario to front-loading.there are many theories that try to scientifically do this but they mostly fail.. the best theory is ID and the front-loading of what a species needs. After all science is having a tough time of getting you an explanation....
![]()
Hagfish Eyes Debunks Claim Eye Evolution
Discovery of sophisticated eyes in a fossilized hagfish has dethroned the modern blind hagfish as the only observable intermediate form in eye evolution.answersingenesis.org
You need to learn more about this before you start spouting off about it.We have many mutation genes shared across many different species... the vit-C mutation is no different, it can't show common descent just as the 1000s of gene differences can't prove uncommon descent... Guinea pigs share that mutation too and we did not evolve from them either.
So it was NOT proven from the maths.the Higgs boson particle was proven to actually exist through several scientific experiments.
So it was NOT proven from the maths.The math for the existence of such particle was only on paper...but through physics and actual experimentation the particle was proven to exist.
But it is never the case that a proof in maths proves something in science, which was your original claim.While 'proofs' technically do not exist in the sense of a proven theory... proofs of how a theory can be true or false take place all the time (except of course with evolution...)
The mechanism for how species appeared.Mech for what? please be clear on what you are asking as you seem to assume much and I don't want to assume here.
I take it you do not understand the linked web page, so cannot even find a relevant quote.It looks like this is just another example of where design is actually the better choice for the slight differences:
No, Martin, it was dodged before. Big difference.]this was explained before:
ArticleSafari: Dolphin DNA Very Close to Human - Reef Science
http://www.articlesafari.com/2010/10/dolphin-human-dna/ Seema Kumar, of Discovery Channel Online, writes that scientists have discovered that the genetic make-up of dolphins is amazingly similar to humans. They’re closer to us than cows, horses, or pigs, despite the fact that they live in the...www.reefrelieffounders.com
But that does not address the question: Why is Chimp DNA Closer to Human DNA than to Gorilla DNA?nobody is refuting that they are so different genetically at a high level. What matters is the differnces. But when you look at the differences as in gene expression/chromosomes...you see why we can fly planes and chimps can excel at hunter biden artwork. Design posits commonness and even shows it.
But, again, that does not address the question: Why is Chimp DNA Closer to Human DNA than to Gorilla DNA?here is a great quote:
"You can knock out a gene that encodes a protein for an inner ear bone in say a mouse. This has been done. And then you can take a protein that is similar to it but from a fruit fly. And fruit flies aren’t vertebrates and they certainly are not mammals., so they don’t have inner ear bones. And you can plug that gene in and guess what happens? The offspring of the mouse will have a perfectly normal inner ear bone. So you can swap out all these files. I mentioning this to you because when you hear about we are 99% similar (to chimps) it is almost all referring to those protein coding regions. When you start looking, and you start comparing different mammals. Dolphins, aardvarks, elephants, manatees, humans, chimpanzees,, it doesn’t really matter. What you find is that the protein coding sequences are very well conserved, and there is also a lot of the DNA that is not protein coding that is also highly conserved. But when you look at the chromosomes and those banding patterns, those bar codes, (mentioned at the beginning of the talk), its akin to going into the grocery store. You see a bunch of black and white lines right? You’ve seen one bar code you’ve seen them all. But those bar codes are not the same.,, Here’s an example, aardvark and human chromosomes. They look very similar at the DNA level when you take small snippets of them. (Yet) When you look at how they are arranged in a linear pattern along the chromosome they turn out to be very distinct " (from one another).https://idthefuture.com/799/
Seriously, this has to be the simplest question I could ask you. I just what to know if, for example, you believe God created the world in six days 6000 years ago, or perhaps you think God created each "kind", but over 4 billions years.We have ample science that proves the coding behind DNA and the genome expressions. there are just too many failures (some of which were pointed out above) in your evo-devo faith system.
We are related to the octopus, but distantly.Question for you- we share some really key genome similarities with the octopus... complex brains, and the camera eye.... but evolutionist (you) state that we are not related to the octopus... how do you explain it? is it just a miracle that such complex organs came about twice on their own?(and then many other times in other species all on their own)?
Over a thousand is still hundreds. And it is not thousands, as you claimed.Over a week ago I stated 100's in reference to biologists however, I also posted a link that day: https://thenewamerican.com/over-1-000-scientists-openly-dissent-from-evolution-theory/
for you to seemingly and purposely try to misrepresent this, is concerning. When one corrects the record...one should accept that corrected record from the 17th.
I stand by what I said. You have confirmed that you believe evolution says people are descended from dolphins. Thus, the evidence shows you really are clueless about evolution.Now you have several questions and problems you need to address..do YOU care to step up? (I won't inject immaturity as you do).
Pixie believes that commonness equates to descent!!!! She tries the typical old and tired ploy that humans and chimp DNA is 94% similar (she still thinks its closer to 99%... proven wrong of course). What Pixie misses is the clear concept of DNA similarity...and shooting down her precious theory but showing we are not dolphins.. over the head it seems that common DNA segments do not equate to common descent.Martin Believes Evolution Says People Are Descended From Dolphins?!?
This needs a post of its own.
I never said you believe it. I said you believe evolution says it, as you have just confirmed.
This is such an incredible misunderstanding of evolution I am at a loss where you could possibly have got it from. I am sure no creationist organisation says anything so ridiculous.
as proven in several posts ... it is clear that you have little understanding of Darwinian theory... you are open with your confusion... on two main points that you can't seem to grasp:The Abundance of Evidence
It is my opinion that you are deeply ignorant of the theory of evolution, given you believe it says people are descended from dolphins.
Wow.. Pixie falls down the hole of more bad science equates to fact... too funny. Pixie would be a prime candidate for Flat Earthers... as they had the majority view (until better science showed up and the believers bailed)....Pixie would be a prime candidate for Earth-centric science followers... (until better science showed up and shut them up)... Pixie would be a prime candidate for Sun-centric followers because she feels that the majority is correct... too funny ( and better science shows up and kicks them to the curb).It is not my theory, by the way. Over a hundred thousand biologists accept it.
Pretty much in your faith-filled mind. but ok it's 'huge' and is still not proof.You say "only" but the fact is that this covers a huge amount of evidence.
It is actually a better example of design: Just for you-The pattern of variation between amino acids - cytochrome-c is just one example - is a great example of reproducible experiments that provide evidence of evolution.
Too funny you seem further confused. you can't reproduce evolution but Pixie now proclaims that reproducing past experiments proves it in an evidential way. Yes Pixie.. 2+2 does = 4 and it will tomorrow too but it in no way is evidence for evolution any more than a tired old experiment with gaps does... no matter how many times you wish to repeat it.Comparison of DNA and morphology are other great example of reproducible experiments that provide evidence of evolution.
wow... why be so ignorant of the missing data? Your millions of fossils just prove the gaps and missing links and the massive problem that Evo-Devos have with the incredible appearance of new species in a blink of an evolutionary eye.And there are plenty of others. So when you say "The only evidence" you are ignoring he fact that there is a huge body of evidence for evolution through reproducible experiments besides the million or so fossils.
Not ignoring it at all ..just exposing it for all it's missing links and all it's differences.... (find your mermaid yet? LOL).. if readers recall Pixie believes that because she can't find a mermaid .(or a dog/cat/fish/mushroom/man) it proves evolution... very entertaining though.
The pattern of variation between amino acids, comparison of DNA and morphology, etc., etc. This is the 'abundance of evidence'. Why are you so determined to ignore all this evidence?
ID actually uses factual science to detect design and define it. what evo-devos do is just pray to darwin for someone to fill all the missing gaps and links and math in their theory.= no wonder so many scientists are actually factually bailing from it.Because that is what creationism has to do. It cannot possibly hope to compete. It has next to no evidence of its own, so it does the only thing it can and pretends the evidence for evolution does not exist.
you can't pass on any changes if you die off. basic evo-devo concept.. if your species dies.. no propagation. should be easy to grasp. (should be..but)The Fossil Record
And that disproves evolution how?
If you can't show exactly how evolution works besides pointing to the textbook definition of long, slow random inherited traits that eventually propagate outward in some mystical tree-o-life poster... then pointing out that you have no propagation kinda/sorta/clearly points out the failing of evolution there. But if you have deep deep faith in your theory that maybe you will live to see the gaps filled in one by one (like darwin feared..and never saw)... then you can cling to your empty evidences.You go on and on about the gaps in the fossil record. Tell me how they disprove evolution. Walk me through the logic here.
wow.. maybe you can show us all (and I hope you can share your newfound science with real scientists).. show us step by evo-devo step any bird that evolved from a dino. this will be great... (please..no assumed records or missing gaps.... yawn)Birds evolved from Dinosaurs
Yeah for Pixie... she falls down the hole of the fallacy of the majority... that makes her a Flat-earther... Earth-centric believer and Sun-centric supporter just because she want's to feel like the more the merrier... Heck she probably still believes in the universe steady-state too...as most scientists did... until better science crept in and changed the prayers of the older mindsets..... bravo for you Pixie.. you seem to be in great company... and cozy in your faithOver a hundred thousand biologists accept evolution
Sorry, if you are unable to google the mechanism for evolution... it was a test and it seemed to confuse you as expected... I was just hoping you could show the thread here how you can explain evolution without begging for 'front-loading' concepts like co-option ...or theories that go against evolution's slow blind random growth like co-option....... but you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth and can't decide where to put your faith in... guided and rapid like you posted a link in support of? or Darwinian evolution like you said you believed in?.. still want both? then explain it. (no wonder scientists are bailing from it)The Mechanism of Evolution
you clearly ignore what ID is fully about. you are not equipped to deal with ID so you keep defaulting to 'creationism' since that was what you were probably injected with.. you know little about ID and you keep ignoring that. If the best you can do is ....welp there is a huge amount of work that has to be done on this... then you have great great faith in your crumbling theorySo it turns out that there is a huge amount of work that has been done on this.
Easy to answer. Just step up... it's your turn.. I spent two days answering your questions and you have dodged mine.The Mechanism of Creation
In a strange coincidence, I keep asking for the ID mechanism.
Post #1678: Can you point me to the mechanism ID proposes. I have never seen it, and I do not believe one has ever been proposed.
Post #1693: Can you point me to the mechanism ID proposes.
Post #1703: I asked you for the mechanism ID proposed; you dodged it
Post #1711: I asked you for the mechanism ID proposed; you dodged it
Post #1737: I asked you for the mechanism ID proposed; you dodged it
Post #1809: I asked you for the mechanism ID proposed; you dodged it
So far, you have made zero attempt to answer this. Why is that?
It has none.