|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 27, 2018 11:36:03 GMT
I'm ok with saying the Galapagos Islands contain different animals or vary slightly more different in appearance compared to the rest of the animals on the planet. Shrug
So mutations or genetic differences can be present but they don't change you from a bird to a snake for example. So not a big change like that.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Apr 30, 2018 8:01:31 GMT
You mean how they date the fossils via radio metric dating? Yes. Also the fact that fossils get more complex as the layers of rock gets more to the surface. Ah youâre talking about the geological column and the fossils found in the layers, yea? You know they found anomalies with that, right? In the Grand Canyon they found a tree that was sticking up through the layers, as well as a whale. Not to mention they found fossils of fish eating other fish and fish in the middle of giving birth. You have to think how those things can get frozen in time when each layer is supposed represent millions of years Have you ever heard of Kent Hovind? If not you should look him up, maybe not his new stuff but all of his older stuff is great. He really gets into evolution, fossil dating, and all that jazz.
|
|
Reyth
New Member
Posts: 8
Likes: 10
Religion: is simply a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion
|
Post by Reyth on May 4, 2018 12:19:12 GMT
Well, if you guys say macro evolution you mean Lamarck's theory and not Darwin's right? Cause Darwin's theory is clearly a theory that does NOT happen from today to tomorrow, but rather in an interval of about 200.000.000 years, a single amino acid in organism changes about every 20.000.000 years! If this is not micro-evolution I do not know what else is! Darwin basically only says that organisms adapt to their environment - or don't - so, even if God exists and even if the Old Testament would be true and God created the humans in a single day, it started with Adam and Eve, how could you explain different eye-, hair-, and skincolor if not with evolution?
|
|
|
Post by just10sp on May 5, 2018 19:28:34 GMT
Well, if you guys say macro evolution you mean Lamarck's theory and not Darwin's right? Cause Darwin's theory is clearly a theory that does NOT happen from today to tomorrow, but rather in an interval of about 200.000.000 years, a single amino acid in organism changes about every 20.000.000 years! If this is not micro-evolution I do not know what else is! Darwin basically only says that organisms adapt to their environment - or don't - so, even if God exists and even if the Old Testament would be true and God created the humans in a single day, it started with Adam and Eve, how could you explain different eye-, hair-, and skincolor if not with evolution? I agree and disagree! I donât agree with us being monkeys! I agree we change and adapt! Gregg Braddon, a scientist/engineer/priest did a very detailed video about Darwin and how it has been engineered to conform the belief that it is fact, when it is in fact theory. He showed the diagrams of different types of monkeys and the dotted lines between them. Straight lines meant they have conclusive evidence of fossils in the legend. Dotted lines showed the need for more evidence. They were all dotted lines. He also noted that most people only have been able to read the test book version of his theory, which is different from the actual papers Darwin wrote himself. He brought up that because of this parts of his theory had essentially been cherry picked. He studied the papers very well, and had much respect for Darwin and gained a level of personalization with Darwin by studying how he wrote even and the video was very well done. Gregg Braddon is a very well respected person and has proven that by vibration our DNA changes, the more love we feel the more energy passes through it and turns it on. Most people have 20 of 64 active codeines some people have 24. Its been shown the two base emotions fear and love control our bodies vibration, and our long term vibration determines our DNA encoding. This is the basis of DNA activation. In theory high forms of love through generations could change our bodies. Evolution is becoming accustomed to our surroundings. Another man Bruce Lipton also proved that we are a result of our surroundings as well as what we consume. You are what you consume. He goes into MUCH more detail. He is a PhD biologist and proved that according to stem cells, a cell becomes sick in poor environments and becomes healthy in good ones. They also form differently, they may become muscle tissue, bone, and other components of the body. He also did cellular cloning in the 1950âs. Since his scientific findings he quit being a professor and kind of became a new age belief that we are makers of ourselves. Because we are conscious beings we can choose to feel love. Jesus said love is the key! Therefor love is the key to humanly evolution, as well as outwardly conditions!
|
|
Reyth
New Member
Posts: 8
Likes: 10
Religion: is simply a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion
|
Post by Reyth on May 5, 2018 19:42:43 GMT
Well, if you guys say macro evolution you mean Lamarck's theory and not Darwin's right? Cause Darwin's theory is clearly a theory that does NOT happen from today to tomorrow, but rather in an interval of about 200.000.000 years, a single amino acid in organism changes about every 20.000.000 years! If this is not micro-evolution I do not know what else is! Darwin basically only says that organisms adapt to their environment - or don't - so, even if God exists and even if the Old Testament would be true and God created the humans in a single day, it started with Adam and Eve, how could you explain different eye-, hair-, and skincolor if not with evolution? I agree and disagree! I donât agree with us being monkeys! I agree we change and adapt! Gregg Braddon, a scientist/engineer/priest did a very detailed video about Darwin and how it has been engineered to conform the belief that it is fact, when it is in fact theory. He showed the diagrams of different types of monkeys and the dotted lines between them. Straight lines meant they have conclusive evidence of fossils in the legend. Dotted lines showed the need for more evidence. They were all dotted lines. He also noted that most people only have been able to read the test book version of his theory, which is different from the actual papers Darwin wrote himself. He brought up that because of this parts of his theory had essentially been cherry picked. He studied the papers very well, and had much respect for Darwin and gained a level of personalization with Darwin by studying how he wrote even and the video was very well done. Gregg Braddon is a very well respected person and has proven that by vibration our DNA changes, the more love we feel the more energy passes through it and turns it on. Most people have 20 of 64 active codeines some people have 24. Its been shown the two base emotions fear and love control our bodies vibration, and our long term vibration determines our DNA encoding. This is the basis of DNA activation. In theory high forms of love through generations could change our bodies. Evolution is becoming accustomed to our surroundings. Another man Bruce Lipton also proved that we are a result of our surroundings as well as what we consume. You are what you consume. He goes into MUCH more detail. He is a PhD biologist and proved that according to stem cells, a cell becomes sick in poor environments and becomes healthy in good ones. They also form differently, they may become muscle tissue, bone, and other components of the body. He also did cellular cloning in the 1950âs. Since his scientific findings he quit being a professor and kind of became a new age belief that we are makers of ourselves. Because we are conscious beings we can choose to feel love. Jesus said love is the key! Therefor love is the key to humanly evolution, as well as outwardly conditions! yea, our environment shapes needs and change our DNA, this is also called epigenetic. When rats for example are in food shortage, their DNA changes through methylation. Whereas the animal itself doesn't change it's appearance, their offspring has a VERY different appearance, they don't need as much food and are much bigger. So yeah your environment shapes and changes your genes toward your needs / necessities
|
|
|
Post by just10sp on May 6, 2018 19:47:46 GMT
I agree and disagree! I donât agree with us being monkeys! I agree we change and adapt! Gregg Braddon, a scientist/engineer/priest did a very detailed video about Darwin and how it has been engineered to conform the belief that it is fact, when it is in fact theory. He showed the diagrams of different types of monkeys and the dotted lines between them. Straight lines meant they have conclusive evidence of fossils in the legend. Dotted lines showed the need for more evidence. They were all dotted lines. He also noted that most people only have been able to read the test book version of his theory, which is different from the actual papers Darwin wrote himself. He brought up that because of this parts of his theory had essentially been cherry picked. He studied the papers very well, and had much respect for Darwin and gained a level of personalization with Darwin by studying how he wrote even and the video was very well done. Gregg Braddon is a very well respected person and has proven that by vibration our DNA changes, the more love we feel the more energy passes through it and turns it on. Most people have 20 of 64 active codeines some people have 24. Its been shown the two base emotions fear and love control our bodies vibration, and our long term vibration determines our DNA encoding. This is the basis of DNA activation. In theory high forms of love through generations could change our bodies. Evolution is becoming accustomed to our surroundings. Another man Bruce Lipton also proved that we are a result of our surroundings as well as what we consume. You are what you consume. He goes into MUCH more detail. He is a PhD biologist and proved that according to stem cells, a cell becomes sick in poor environments and becomes healthy in good ones. They also form differently, they may become muscle tissue, bone, and other components of the body. He also did cellular cloning in the 1950âs. Since his scientific findings he quit being a professor and kind of became a new age belief that we are makers of ourselves. Because we are conscious beings we can choose to feel love. Jesus said love is the key! Therefor love is the key to humanly evolution, as well as outwardly conditions! yea, our environment shapes needs and change our DNA, this is also called epigenetic. When rats for example are in food shortage, their DNA changes through methylation. Whereas the animal itself doesn't change it's appearance, their offspring has a VERY different appearance, they don't need as much food and are much bigger. So yeah your environment shapes and changes your genes toward your needs / necessities I read a study where they took lactose intolerant cells and provided them with only lactate foods. The cells all changed and were no longer lactose intolerant. Very interesting!
|
|
|
Post by stethacanthus on Aug 2, 2018 15:20:52 GMT
Darwin got a lot right about Evolution, but the theory has developed far past anything in Origin of the Species and The Descent of Man. I can answer a few of the things I have seen.
1. Macro and Micro do not describe meaningfully different concepts. Itâs just a matter of scale. We can experimentally demonstrate that the the closest relative to whales and dolphIns is the hippopotamus, which would not be predicted by an intelligent design model, which would rely on anatomy and physiology to group them together most likely closer to pinnipeds than anything with hooves. We can show that Homo sapiensâ chromosome 2 has telomeres at the ends but also the center as though another chromosome got tacked on. When we sequence that and compare it to a âmissingâ shared chromosome with chimpanzees, itâs a near perfect match. We have hundreds if not thousands of examples like this.
2. There is a phenomenon called Punctuated Equilibrium, which explains some of these ârapid evolutionâ events. It ties in closely to other ecological concepts like the founder effect, but it can be most easily described that a small population becomes subject to different selective pressures like an absence of predators. Individuals in this case that have genes investing highly in defense are at an energetic disadvantage against those that had phenotypes that used to make them vulnerable. That change combined with a low population size makes it possible for dramatic changes to happen in a relatively short time. Another reason is gene duplication events, where an entire gene ends up being duplicated by mistake. That gene can conserve mutations at relatively no disadvantage to the organism as long as one copy is still functional. We have cases where entire genomes have been duplicated.
The best argument for Evolution though is phylogenetics. Itâs built almost entirely on observing current DNA and using deterministic experiments to demonstrate high confidence patterns. These models corroborate existing geological timescales and previously unverifiable hypotheses.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 2, 2018 15:33:30 GMT
Darwin got a lot right about Evolution, but the theory has developed far past anything in Origin of the Species and The Descent of Man. I can answer a few of the things I have seen. 1. Macro and Micro do not describe meaningfully different concepts. Itâs just a matter of scale. We can experimentally demonstrate that the the closest relative to whales and dolphIns is the hippopotamus, which would not be predicted by an intelligent design model, which would rely on anatomy and physiology to group them together most likely closer to pinnipeds than anything with hooves. We can show that Homo sapiensâ chromosome 2 has telomeres at the ends but also the center as though another chromosome got tacked on. When we sequence that and compare it to a âmissingâ shared chromosome with chimpanzees, itâs a near perfect match. We have hundreds if not thousands of examples like this. 2. There is a phenomenon called Punctuated Equilibrium, which explains some of these ârapid evolutionâ events. It ties in closely to other ecological concepts like the founder effect, but it can be most easily described that a small population becomes subject to different selective pressures like an absence of predators. Individuals in this case that have genes investing highly in defense are at an energetic disadvantage against those that had phenotypes that used to make them vulnerable. That change combined with a low population size makes it possible for dramatic changes to happen in a relatively short time. Another reason is gene duplication events, where an entire gene ends up being duplicated by mistake. That gene can conserve mutations at relatively no disadvantage to the organism as long as one copy is still functional. We have cases where entire genomes have been duplicated. The best argument for Evolution though is phylogenetics. Itâs built almost entirely on observing current DNA and using deterministic experiments to demonstrate high confidence patterns. These models corroborate existing geological timescales and previously unverifiable hypotheses. Why can't there be an intelligence design model based on that?
|
|
|
Post by stethacanthus on Aug 2, 2018 16:31:38 GMT
Elizabeth,
First Iâm sorry for combining my Punctuated Equilibrium explanation with changing selective pressures. That change isnât necessary but I always found made it easier.
I understand your question to be âCould a person produce a model of Intelligent design that is compatible with our current phylogenies?â Please let me know if I am wrong.
Short answer: yes but it wouldnât be science.
The answer is that you could more or less imagine any explanation, but the data to support a design model just arenât there. There are a lot of Intelligent design hypotheses in creation journals, and they more or less have the same fundamental assumption: All species or taxonomic families were created at the same time.
You can actually test this using whatâs called a molecular clock. At least when we talk about animals, we can reliably estimate average mutation rates. We can use non-coding regions of DNA (they donât do anything and arenât affected by selection) and compare mutations to them between current populations. By using multiple of these regions and measuring the number of mutations, we can predict the history of divergence in these populations. We can calibrate this to generation times and get an approximate range of how many years ago a specific divergences occurred. The assumption above would predict that these should converge on several taxonomic groups at the same time, which they do not. Itâs not a perfect experiment, but it shows a violated fundamental assumption in most accepted models for Intelligent Design.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Aug 2, 2018 20:58:00 GMT
Elizabeth, First Iâm sorry for combining my Punctuated Equilibrium explanation with changing selective pressures. That change isnât necessary but I always found made it easier. I understand your question to be âCould a person produce a model of Intelligent design that is compatible with our current phylogenies?â Please let me know if I am wrong. Short answer: yes but it wouldnât be science. The answer is that you could more or less imagine any explanation, but the data to support a design model just arenât there. There are a lot of Intelligent design hypotheses in creation journals, and they more or less have the same fundamental assumption: All species or taxonomic families were created at the same time. You can actually test this using whatâs called a molecular clock. At least when we talk about animals, we can reliably estimate average mutation rates. We can use non-coding regions of DNA (they donât do anything and arenât affected by selection) and compare mutations to them between current populations. By using multiple of these regions and measuring the number of mutations, we can predict the history of divergence in these populations. We can calibrate this to generation times and get an approximate range of how many years ago a specific divergences occurred. The assumption above would predict that these should converge on several taxonomic groups at the same time, which they do not. Itâs not a perfect experiment, but it shows a violated fundamental assumption in most acced models for Intelligent Design. The benchmark for determining mutation rates for the molecular clock technique are fossil dates. The problem with this technique is that a grand majority of the time the fossils themselves arenât dated, the sediment around them is, and this is with the radiometric dating method which isnât used most of the time when dating fossils, relative dating is. Moreover, radiometric dating is founded on two unprovable assumptions, those being, 1. There has been no contamination, and 2. The decay rate has been constant If we date sediment of which we know the age, we get inflated ages. Geologists have shown that radiometric dating cannot give reliable absolute ages. When the relative dating method is used to date fossils, the fossil is compared to the sediment around the fossil. When scientists donât know the age of the sediment around the fossils they compare the sediment to index fossils. This is otherwise known as circular reasoning; they date the fossils by the sediment they are in, and they date the sediment by the fossils that are in them facepalm
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 2, 2018 21:35:17 GMT
Elizabeth, First Iâm sorry for combining my Punctuated Equilibrium explanation with changing selective pressures. That change isnât necessary but I always found made it easier. I understand your question to be âCould a person produce a model of Intelligent design that is compatible with our current phylogenies?â Please let me know if I am wrong. Short answer: yes but it wouldnât be science. The answer is that you could more or less imagine any explanation, but the data to support a design model just arenât there. There are a lot of Intelligent design hypotheses in creation journals, and they more or less have the same fundamental assumption: All species or taxonomic families were created at the same time. You can actually test this using whatâs called a molecular clock. At least when we talk about animals, we can reliably estimate average mutation rates. We can use non-coding regions of DNA (they donât do anything and arenât affected by selection) and compare mutations to them between current populations. By using multiple of these regions and measuring the number of mutations, we can predict the history of divergence in these populations. We can calibrate this to generation times and get an approximate range of how many years ago a specific divergences occurred. The assumption above would predict that these should converge on several taxonomic groups at the same time, which they do not. Itâs not a perfect experiment, but it shows a violated fundamental assumption in most acced models for Intelligent Design. That would basically be the question I meant yeah. But how would it not be science? Isn't studying anything in the physical world considered science no matter how something came about?
|
|
|
Post by stethacanthus on Aug 6, 2018 18:11:23 GMT
Elizabeth, First Iâm sorry for combining my Punctuated Equilibrium explanation with changing selective pressures. That change isnât necessary but I always found made it easier. I understand your question to be âCould a person produce a model of Intelligent design that is compatible with our current phylogenies?â Please let me know if I am wrong. Short answer: yes but it wouldnât be science. The answer is that you could more or less imagine any explanation, but the data to support a design model just arenât there. There are a lot of Intelligent design hypotheses in creation journals, and they more or less have the same fundamental assumption: All species or taxonomic families were created at the same time. You can actually test this using whatâs called a molecular clock. At least when we talk about animals, we can reliably estimate average mutation rates. We can use non-coding regions of DNA (they donât do anything and arenât affected by selection) and compare mutations to them between current populations. By using multiple of these regions and measuring the number of mutations, we can predict the history of divergence in these populations. We can calibrate this to generation times and get an approximate range of how many years ago a specific divergences occurred. The assumption above would predict that these should converge on several taxonomic groups at the same time, which they do not. Itâs not a perfect experiment, but it shows a violated fundamental assumption in most acced models for Intelligent Design. That would basically be the question I meant yeah. But how would it not be science? Isn't studying anything in the physical world considered science no matter how something came about? Hi Elizabeth, Traveling so itâs hard to reply often. Science is a suite of philosophical tools used to reduce the subjectivity in our epistemology when we observe the universe. It can be described as a hybrid of empiricism, pragmatism, and skepticism as philosophies. The scientific method is our best attempt at creating models that represent the universe as it has been observed so that we can predict future observations. What you are describing is data collection, but you are leaving out the other half. Observation is useless if it cannot predict anything. The reason that a model for intelligent design based on phylogenies would not be scientific is because we have no observation That indicate a designer, so a model centered on that concept is like doing science backwards. You are taking a conclusion and trying to validate it with observations, and not deriving your conclusions from the data and models.
|
|
FireFoxAssassin
Full Member
Posts: 268
Likes: 151
Country: United Kingdom
Region: Wales
Religion: N/A (Atheism)
Age: 17
|
Post by FireFoxAssassin on Aug 6, 2018 23:03:02 GMT
Adding a poll I can do! I double checked too so totally can do it . Let me know if you still want the poll and let me know poll question and choices you'd want. But I don't mind the kids exposed to Darwin or biology. We all were anyway. Plus we all must decide for ourselves what to believe. :/ I agree. Scientific theories belong in science class. Its up to the parents to tell their children that evolution's wrong. If evolution is wrong, then why do we have upside-down retinas, inefficient DNA sorting, chances of failed fixing in DNA and a horribly designed heart? The mechanisms of evolution make systems work, not perfect. If god did exist, then why did he design the human body this weirdly?
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Aug 6, 2018 23:18:52 GMT
I agree. Scientific theories belong in science class. Its up to the parents to tell their children that evolution's wrong. If evolution is wrong, then why do we have upside-down retinas, inefficient DNA sorting, chances of failed fixing in DNA and a horribly designed heart? The mechanisms of evolution make systems work, not perfect. If god did exist, then why did he design the human body this weirdly? <iframe width="33.72000000000003" height="6.639999999999986" style="position: absolute; width: 33.72000000000003px; height: 6.639999999999986px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_1572003" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.72000000000003" height="6.639999999999986" style="position: absolute; width: 33.72px; height: 6.64px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1616px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_2662869" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.72000000000003" height="6.639999999999986" style="position: absolute; width: 33.72px; height: 6.64px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 269px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_27086982" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="33.72000000000003" height="6.639999999999986" style="position: absolute; width: 33.72px; height: 6.64px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1616px; top: 269px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_56551077" scrolling="no"></iframe> I have no idea. Either way, it doesn't matter. The God of the Bible spoke to me clearly. If the God of the Bible is real, than his Bible must be real and thus his account of history. Thus evolution must be wrong no matter the evidence. Shrug
|
|
FireFoxAssassin
Full Member
Posts: 268
Likes: 151
Country: United Kingdom
Region: Wales
Religion: N/A (Atheism)
Age: 17
|
Post by FireFoxAssassin on Aug 6, 2018 23:23:00 GMT
sure whatever you say. You're the type of person that will ignore all evidence provided to you so there is no purpose in continuing this. The end result is very clear.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Aug 6, 2018 23:54:40 GMT
sure whatever you say. You're the type of person that will ignore all evidence provided to you so there is no purpose in continuing this. The end result is very clear. Glad we understand each other, now kindly leave me be.
|
|