♪alt13
Well-Known Member
lol
I'm guessing that by "consensus morality" you mean that which you deem to be moral. Probably whatever Rush or Hannity or Beck deems to be moral.
Science vs. Creationism
- Thread starter dodo
- Start date
lol
I'm guessing that by "consensus morality" you mean that which you deem to be moral. Probably whatever Rush or Hannity or Beck deems to be moral.
Changes from one generation to the next.
What are the boundaries of accumulated changes over time?
Changes from one generation to the next.
A common lie.
Mutations, environment, and selection.
Yes, We have documented this.
Actually, these particular atheists are much more likely to support what you likely consider consensus morality.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Consensus was the wrong word...since consensus morality seems to be do whatever the hell you want to do.
I just mean if they truly changed their life with a decision it involved a rejection of morals/values from parents or community.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor those life-forms best suited to the environment, whereas less suitable life-forms would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose the ones with gene mutations that made them capable of surviving in their new environment. As a result, evolutionists speculate, these isolated groups eventually developed into totally new species.
What proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new species? A brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States refers to “the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.”
The researchers found that as the climatic conditions on the island changed, finches with longer beaks were dominant one year, but later those with smaller beaks were dominant. They also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. They concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one.
So, does natural selection really create entirely new species? Decades ago, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams began questioning whether natural selection had such power. In 1999, evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H.*Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new.
Indeed, Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They are still finches. And the fact that they are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species. In addition, information about these birds exposes the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.
...kind of like getting "hosed" by the refs?
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
All evidence of evolution is inferential, not directly observational. Unless someone somewhere watched a new species develop and tracked the exact DNA sequence changes that lead to that new species.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Well, even that involves complications.
I think there is like 12 different definitions of what it means to be a "new species" and then if the changes involve loss of information it ain't "evolution" but "devolution."
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
.....yeah, DEVO!......"and when a problem comes along, you can whip it!"
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
.....well, I read some of that.....and it seems to me that there IS a limit in the reproduction of new species, thus supporting the Genesis account of creation! At the very least, your boys are bouncing back and forth like a ping pong ball, accepting one thing, then changing their minds and going back to another "theory" while all the time trying to put there own spin on who can sound the most "intellectual" and sophisticated!
Did you read the speciation FAQ? Most of those examples have had their differences in DNA examined.
Reality has a way of confounding our attempts to categorize things.
Loss of information is still evolution.
Yes, change only occurs a a certain rate among different types of populations, and is thus limited when you have only been looking for 160 years.
Science is self-correcting, and open to change and being proved wrong. It's a strength, not a weakness.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
.....looks more like a ****** wood to me!
MVP
Well-Known Member
Just admit you want to travel there and pray to "deity" or maybe even touch it before it is to late...
Just listened to this yesterday...pretty interesting stuff:
https://www.sciencefriday.com/segme...-origins-of-the-chicken-and-chili-pepper.html
It's a quick listen.
https://www.sciencefriday.com/segme...-origins-of-the-chicken-and-chili-pepper.html
It's a quick listen.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....first of all, not so "quick!" 17 minutes! But I got what I needed to hear in the first 60 seconds! "Where planting and farming got started some 10,000 years ago?" Truth be told and known, planting and farming got started about 6,000 years ago when . . ."Jehovah God planted a garden in E′den, toward the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 Thus Jehovah God made to grow out of the ground every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food . . .10 Now there was a river flowing out of E′den to water the garden, and from there it divided into four rivers....15 Jehovah God took the man and settled him in the garden of E′den to cultivate it and to take care of it!"