Evolution - A serious question.
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
"35% identical"...that made me laugh a little.
SerpicoNJ = Jimmy McNulty = Jame Gumb = KrazeeEyezKilla = SalmonHobo
Also creepy.
Did I miss anyone?
*Tony Shalhoub
Being such a PC person I'd think you'd at least spell an ethnic name correctly... sheesh!
On the important topic, I find Psych regularly funny but occasionally flat, when Monk ws often brilliant but somethimes stale.
There are bald mice.
What does "new attribute" mean, and why would a mouse have it? Are we back to saltationism (aka hopless monsters) again?
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
We share an ancestral population with all primates, so you could call than an early primate. Before that, there would not be a name in the vernacular.
This actually helps my point. 35% is on the low end for eukaryotes, meaning we're not that closely related to daffodils.
I fully acknowledge the evidence is consistent with a trickster God who wants us to believe in evlution falsely. Perhaps Loki, or Coyote.
The are sequences for the same protiens doing the same things. There is no progress involved.
All eukaryotes convert ADP to ATP in the same way, burn oxygen in the same way, etc. No progress there.
We recognize the black & white TV as being designed because it looks like other designed things.
There are bald mice.
What does "new attribute" mean, and why would a mouse have it? Are we back to saltationism (aka hopless monsters) again?
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
We share an ancestral population with all primates, so you could call than an early primate. Before that, there would not be a name in the vernacular.
This actually helps my point. 35% is on the low end for eukaryotes, meaning we're not that closely related to daffodils.
I fully acknowledge the evidence is consistent with a trickster God who wants us to believe in evlution falsely. Perhaps Loki, or Coyote.
The are sequences for the same protiens doing the same things. There is no progress involved.
All eukaryotes convert ADP to ATP in the same way, burn oxygen in the same way, etc. No progress there.
We recognize the black & white TV as being designed because it looks like other designed things.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
bald=hairless coat
You claim mice came from a "generic mammal." In order to go from a "generic mammal" to a mouse you have to gain new attributes or you are still a "generic mammal" and not a mouse.
No, you claim we share an "ancestral population" with all primates. "Before that" ain't in the vernacular because it doesn't exist in the fossil record, and that is where your "predictions" (aka ridiculous speculation) fall apart.
No **** Sherlock.
If God wanted us to believe in Darwinism he would have put some transitional species in the fossil record and put mountains of fossil evidence for all the random mutations that went wrong.
He probably has a good laugh that Darwiniacs continue to insist our beautifully designed eyes were nothing more than a series of random mutations.
You mean like how a toilet or a window does the same thing in the same way in different designs of buildings?
I think you are starting to get it now.
We also know coordinated mechanisms/systems that look designed don't just get that way accidentally.
Having a coat made from hair, and a "hairless coat" (whatever that is supposed to be), is still an example of different attributes. Parents don't need to have an attribure for their offspring to have it.
Why do you think that is a problem? Children often have attributes that parents do not. My son has an autism-spectrum disorder, which neither I nor my wife have.
So, you didn't read the link I offered, or didn't understand it, or disagree for reasons not based in evidence. Fine by me.
What're the vernacular names for Palaechthon and Cantius?
They are there.
That would be good evidence against the fossil record. Almost all the "random mutations that went wrong" would result in creatures that died long before being hatched/born. Obviously, Anansi is much cleverer than that.
These would be the human eyes full of kludges and cobbled-together ideas? Or, were you talking about camera eyes? Those are certainly beautifully designed.
More like how a fireplace does different things in a brick house and in a log cabin.
I've known for a long time that we identify design by comparison to other design. Of course, if you really want to allow comparison of designs, biological designs are incredibly inefficient by comparisns to humans. So, your designer is beomces the Incompetant Designer. That's why the ID movement is trying to find a different design argument. They don't wnt to believe in the Incompetent God.
Actually, they can and do all the time. There is no design behind the water cycle.
Does anyone know if this was ever discussed here on the board. I'm just listening to this podcast now that covers this absolutely amazing discovery.
https://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/09/11/2015/meet-homo-naledi-another-long-lost-relative.html
Also, that lady at the beginning is one bad ***!
https://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/09/11/2015/meet-homo-naledi-another-long-lost-relative.html
Also, that lady at the beginning is one bad ***!
Oh stop. Everyone knows that evolution is on par with the Atkins diet.
#longerfad
God created us and no amount of links can change that.
Btw, God created the links, indirectly, by creation of man in the first place.
#mindblown
Ever stop to think the reason their brains were the size of an orange was due to no light and no stimuli?
#dumbspelunkers
#longerfad
God created us and no amount of links can change that.
Btw, God created the links, indirectly, by creation of man in the first place.
#mindblown
Ever stop to think the reason their brains were the size of an orange was due to no light and no stimuli?
#dumbspelunkers
Okay, I have a serious question.
I don't get into science as much as I maybe should.
Can someone explain or link (God-provided) an explanation of infinite universe.
You know, the old kindergarten question about how does space neither stop nor go on forever.
I still don't know!
I don't get into science as much as I maybe should.
Can someone explain or link (God-provided) an explanation of infinite universe.
You know, the old kindergarten question about how does space neither stop nor go on forever.
I still don't know!
We don't know enough to answer any part of that question with any degree of certainty. As far as we can tell, it is flat and finite. I don't feel like explaining anything, but here's a link that discusses it a bit:
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/universe-infinite-big-universe/
Thanks for the link. I will definitely read as time permits.
Until then, how the hell is space finite? lol
Why wouldn't it be? It had a beginning, didn't it? It is then of a finite age. And depending on what happened in the moment that followed creation, it is probably finite in size. It has been expanding like a balloon from a single point ever since.
No, no.. Forget what you know for a sec and understand I'm asking what's beyond the balloon.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
“A component has evidently been missing from cosmological studies. The origin of the Universe, like the solution of the Rubik cube, requires an intelligence,” wrote astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in his book The Intelligent Universe, page 189.
“The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.”—Disturbing the Universe, by Freeman Dyson, page 250.
“What features of the Universe were essential for the emergence of creatures such as ourselves, and is it through coincidence, or for some deeper reason, that our Universe has these features? .*.*. Is there some deeper plan that ensures that the Universe is tailor-made for humankind?”—Cosmic Coincidences, by John Gribbin and Martin Rees, pages xiv, 4.
Fred Hoyle also comments on these properties, on page*220 of his book quoted above: “Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy accidents. But there are so many of these odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them.”
“It is not only that man is adapted to the universe. The universe is adapted to man. Imagine a universe in which one or another of the fundamental dimensionless constants of physics is altered by a few percent one way or the other? Man could never come into being in such a universe. That is the central point of the anthropic principle. According to this principle, a life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.”—The Anthropic Cosmological Principle,” by John Barrow and Frank Tipler,*page*vii.
Romans 1:20 declares: “His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.”
The question is meaningless. The universe is not expanding in a larger one. A balloon is a 3-dimensional object expanding into the dimensionality provided by the universe. When the universe expands, it is the dimensions themselves gaining ability to contain stuff of the appropriate dimensionality at a larger average seperation.
I am in bed reading, so I'm using my tablet to type this, which is a pain in the ***. I can elaboratory tomorrow if I found the time. But I assure you that myself and countless others have pondered these questions at a far deeper level than your "forget what you know" phrase suggests you realize.
Please do. I care. And I owe my best explanation I can muster for my kids. Mine sucks.