1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieThe topic is the design argument, I don't believe anyone on either side of
we are talking about scientific evidence. you do understand that looking around and having a personal opinion is not scientific evidence.
ill repeat what ive already said. you or anybody else can look at the universe and think "it screams of a creator".......this is [b]NOT scientific evidence!!!
if you insist it is scientific evidence then p ...[text shortened]... ght it was. you have me all wrong sir. i just choose to base my opinions on scientific evidence.[/b]
the debate has anything other than faith to support their beliefs on the
topic. I do believe that the universe has been molded to support life as we
see it, I don't believe it was caused by nothing.
Originally posted by KellyJayThere is no inherent conflict between evolution and design. Evolution could be one of the mechanisms by which the designer regulates change in the system; changes that alter the population of the system to thrive in the changing environment.
The topic is the design argument, I don't believe anyone on either side of
the debate has anything other than faith to support their beliefs on the
topic. I do believe that the universe has been molded to support life as we
see it, I don't believe it was caused by nothing.
It is where we get into specific religious beliefs that conflicts between evolution and design arise. This should inform us of where the faith aspect arises.
And one need not have faith in evolution. It is adequate to entertain it as a proposed explanation of biological change over time; useful for some things for some people. Such provisional acceptance is not adequate for religion, which demands faith. This should also tell us where faith arises.
Originally posted by KellyJayWould this "knowing" perchance be based on something other than wishful thinking?
It is knowing that in a complex living system a small change can do more
damage than good, and you are talking about whole sale over halls as if
it were no big deal. The thing about random mutations within DNA, if
they are indeed random they can come and go, you just believe that the
good ones stay and build upon themselves when random changes have
no ...[text shortened]... the death through
random mutations is much more likely.
Nothing to do with wishful thinking!
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayEvolution theory is quite friendly to the idea that most mutations confer more disadvantager (even fatally so) than advantages. But given enough mutations, the mutations that do confer advantages will be incorporated into the genotype and passed on, more than mutations that confer disadvantages.
It is knowing that in a complex living system a small change can do more
damage than good, and you are talking about whole sale over halls as if
it were no big deal. The thing about random mutations within DNA, if
they are indeed random they can come and go, you just believe that the
good ones stay and build upon themselves when random changes have
no ...[text shortened]... the death through
random mutations is much more likely.
Nothing to do with wishful thinking!
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/julyaug/07-most-mutations-in-the-human-genome-are-recent-and-probably-harmful
Originally posted by KellyJayForgive me for being blunt, but I'm not interested in your opinion. The question was, what 'biological mechanism' is in place to stop continual repeated steps of micro evolution becoming macro evolution?
Small amounts can do little or no damage, or they can cause little or very
nasty damage. Large amounts of change in my opinion would almost force
damage to take place.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobTo understand this you need to study genetics and information systems. The ability to vary within species with error checking and correcting has been programmed in by whoever did he original program. It is possible that certain errors that does not cause harm can get by these error correcting machines in the cell. But this only results in a degrading of the program with no new beneficial information being added.
Forgive me for being blunt, but I'm not interested in your opinion. The question was, what 'biological mechanism' is in place to stop continual repeated steps of micro evolution becoming macro evolution?
To change a monkey to a man would require a large mount of rewriting of the program. That can only be done by input from an intelligent being that knows what He is doing. It is ridiculous to thank it could happen by random processes over long periods of time. Only a numbnuts would believe that macroevolution nonsense. 😏
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI was looking for an attempt at an answer above the level of 'semi-moronic'. Alas, it seems you have failed.😏
To understand this you need to study genetics and information systems. The ability to vary within species with error checking and correcting has been programmed in by whoever did he original program. It is possible that certain errors that does not cause harm can get by these error correcting machines in the cell. But this only results in a degrading of t ...[text shortened]... esses over long periods of time. Only a numbnuts would believe that macroevolution nonsense. 😏
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you agree that small changes are possible. Well the thing is, a big change is nothing more than a collection of small changes!
So you say, but that is where I draw the line of if is it either probable or possible.
Making small changes in an already established system is one thing, putting
together a system over time is quite another.
Originally posted by AgergAccording to the evolution theory these collection of small changes to make a big change occurs gradually over time. However, this can't work because the big change has to happen quickly at one time. And the big change that must happen at one time is actually a collection of big changes, not small changes, or else it would not work. 😏
So you agree that small changes are possible. Well the thing is, a big change is nothing more than a [b]collection of small changes![/b]
Originally posted by RJHindsHowever, this can't work because the big change has to happen quickly at one time
According to the evolution theory these collection of small changes to make a big change occurs gradually over time. However, this can't work because the big change has to happen quickly at one time. And the big change that must happen at one time is actually a collection of big changes, not small changes, or else it would not work. 😏
Explain?
Originally posted by AgergIn Darwin's theory, the changes were believed to be so slow and gradual that science could not observe the evolution from one kind to another and that transitional forms from one kind to another would be found in the fossil record. However, the fossils simply do not support this small change theory.
[b]However, this can't work because the big change has to happen quickly at one time
Explain?[/b]
So modern evolutionists came up with a new theory called "punctuated equilibrium" because they know from the fossil record that change didn't take place in small gradual steps, so they assume that the change took place in quick "quantum leaps" over long periods of time. Based on this theory they say the change takes place so quickly that it too cannot be observed.
It has been proven in practice that there is a limit to variations that can be obtained through selective breeding before the animal is no longer able to breed or it dies out.
There is scientific evidence that strongly contradict the "ape to human evolution" theory. The ape and human chromosomes are too different for "ape to human evolution" theory to adequately explain. For example, the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.
There are laws of embryology that directly contradict "ape to human evolution." One reason is that genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. This makes it impossible to add genes to any genome because there is no way to coordinate any new gene with existing genes. Yet "ape to human evolution" requires apes and humans to be able to add genes - for example, the chimpanzee Y chromosome has 37 genes and the human Y chromosome has at least 78 genes.
The laws of genetics prevent "ape to human evolution" from ever taking place. One reason is there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes. But "ape to human evolution" relies on apes and humans having the ability to create new genes with new functions. New genes are required in order to have morphological changes, such as gills into lungs or more efficient brains. So called "gene duplication" is not evidence that organisms can create new genes. Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake through "gene duplication," this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.
Evolutionists have no explanation for why humans and apes have a different number of chromosomes. They claim that "chromosome fusion" of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome resulted in humans having only 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs. But there is not one example of "chromosome fusion" in mammals. The claim that 1 in 1000 human babies have a "fused chromosome" is a lie. They are actually referring to Robertsonian Translocations, which are "translocations" and not fused chromosomes and does not result in a change in the chromosome number. Besides, scientifically derived facts refute "chromosome fusion" can occur in apes or humans.
Originally posted by RJHindsFirstly let's have some proper attribution:
In Darwin's theory, the changes were believed to be so slow and gradual that science could not observe the evolution from one kind to another and that transitional forms from one kind to another would be found in the fossil record. However, the fossils simply do not support this small change theory.
So modern evolutionists came up with a new theory calle ...[text shortened]... . Besides, scientifically derived facts refute "chromosome fusion" can occur in apes or humans.
http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/home.php
Secondly, do they ever actually back up these claims!?