jcd11235 0
QuoteWhen someone tries so hard to prove a point, my little red flag goes up.QuoteSerious question with which I mean no offense:
Why is a single book on God (Holy Bible) sufficient as evidence of creation, but hundreds (thousands?) of books on evolutionary theory not sufficient?
Interesting. I feel the same about people who knowingly ignore insurmountable evidence. Would you care to answer the question?
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
rehmwa 2
Quote>You could breed dogs to look like wolves and you'd get something that looked very much like a wolf.
first cross it with a wolf, then cross succeeding generations with wolves.
after about 4 generations, they'd be very wolfish. I'd say somewhere just over 92% wolfish
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
billvon 2,427
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>first cross it with a wolf . . .
That would be cheating. You have to start with a chihuahua.
Interesting side note - linked traits are traits that just happen to appear next to each other on chromosomes, so they are likely to be inherited together (i.e. if you have trait A you're more likely to have trait B.)
A few people have bred foxes for domestication, capturing wild ones and breeding the most docile ones in each litter. Within a few generations (20 at most) they were as docile as dogs, and could 'read' human expressions and emotions as well as dogs, suggesting that docility is inheritable. They also started to get floppy ears and white patches on their coats.
So it looks like the coding for floppy ears is near the coding for docility on a fox's genome. Odd linkage.
That would be cheating. You have to start with a chihuahua.
Interesting side note - linked traits are traits that just happen to appear next to each other on chromosomes, so they are likely to be inherited together (i.e. if you have trait A you're more likely to have trait B.)
A few people have bred foxes for domestication, capturing wild ones and breeding the most docile ones in each litter. Within a few generations (20 at most) they were as docile as dogs, and could 'read' human expressions and emotions as well as dogs, suggesting that docility is inheritable. They also started to get floppy ears and white patches on their coats.
So it looks like the coding for floppy ears is near the coding for docility on a fox's genome. Odd linkage.
rehmwa 2
Quote>first cross it with a wolf . . .
That would be cheating. You have to start with a chihuahua.
then the wolf eats the chihuahua - Insert the chichi DNA in later generations
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Andy9o8 0
QuoteSo it looks like the coding for floppy ears is near the coding for docility on a fox's genome.
Well then, logically, so must be the coding for humping people's legs.
kallend 1,647
QuoteQuote>first cross it with a wolf . . .
That would be cheating. You have to start with a chihuahua.
then the wolf eats the chihuahua - Insert the chichi DNA in later generations
So when you say "I feel like steak tonight" it means you're starting to evolve into a cow?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
wmw999 2,147
That would be trans-gender evolution. I don't think it works that way somehow.QuoteSo when you say "I feel like steak tonight" it means you're starting to evolve into a cow?
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
QuoteQuoteQuote>first cross it with a wolf . . .
That would be cheating. You have to start with a chihuahua.
then the wolf eats the chihuahua - Insert the chichi DNA in later generations
So when you say "I feel like steak tonight" it means you're starting to evolve into a cow?
speaking of food, there's a bunch of idiot scientists out there who believe that the Origin of Feces is from eating a high fiber diet, but, come on, has anyone actually SEEN a bean burrito turn into poop?
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Regardless of evidence (or lack thereof) for either Evolution or creationism, we are supposed to be making intelligent choices here. I choose to support the theory that is the most rational and reasonable. As such, I can not possibly support mythical inventions contrived out of ignorance of the workings of the natural world as a way to explain our presence in this world. As Richard Dawkins said: "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."
"We have met the enemy...and he is us." Pogo
www.mondo-fiasco.com
www.mondo-fiasco.com
How bout them new Cogs/Dats.Quote>first cross it with a wolf . . .
That would be cheating. You have to start with a chihuahua.
Interesting side note - linked traits are traits that just happen to appear next to each other on chromosomes, so they are likely to be inherited together (i.e. if you have trait A you're more likely to have trait B.)
A few people have bred foxes for domestication, capturing wild ones and breeding the most docile ones in each litter. Within a few generations (20 at most) they were as docile as dogs, and could 'read' human expressions and emotions as well as dogs, suggesting that docility is inheritable. They also started to get floppy ears and white patches on their coats.
So it looks like the coding for floppy ears is near the coding for docility on a fox's genome. Odd linkage.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=416816&in_page_id=1770My cousin the mailman is really freakin nowI hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
vpozzoli 0
Quote>I
Nope, completely wrong.
Here's how such an evolution would take place:
You would jump without a parachute. You would die.
Billions of other people would jump without parachutes. They would all die.
Eventually, some freak of nature (6' 6" tall, 120 pounds) would jump, and would land in a tree. He would survive, barely - but he would reproduce. No one else would; heck, they're all dead!
The next generation would be 6 foot plus people, all weighing about 120 pounds. This isn't because evolution "knows" to produce light people, but because all the heavier people are dead, and dead people don't reproduce. Some of these people would be smart enough to track towards trees, and would be tall/light enough to survive. The lightest/tallest/smartest ones of this next generation would survive, the rest would not.
Do this for ten million years, and you'd have a race of people who were all ten feet tall, weighed 80 pounds, and could survive landing in a tree without much injury. Sure, they wouldn't be able to do much else - but in your example, they don't have to. All they have to do is survive jumping out of an airplane without a parachute.
In the real world, we DO have parachutes, so being able to survive a terminal freefall without a parachute isn't much of a survival characteristic - which is why we aren't 10 foot tall stick figures.
Substitute "tree" for "airplane" and "squirrel" for "man" and you would get someting like this:
http://www.australianstamp.com/Coin-web/feature/nature/sqglider.htm
For a creature that lives on trees it is definitely a desirable trait to be able to survive an accidental fall from a great height, those who die from the fall (obviously) stop reproducing, those who survive keep passing on their "improvement" to their offspring and so on and so forth.
Cheers,
Vale
pajarito 0
Neo-Darwinians presume a long chain of random changes which eventually (through very small ones) can lead to large evolutionary change. However, if these events all lose information, they can’t explain NDT no matter how many mutations there are.
The argument "for" Creation doesn't even have to be made here. The argument "against" Evolution is just too strong. If it fails the test at its foundation, it doesn't matter how well you can "stack the bones" based on "looks."
QuoteThe information of life could not have been built up the way the NDT says it was. Evolutionists have not succeeded in finding a random source of the variation that will make the NDT work. In the 1940’s, when we knew almost nothing of molecular biology, evolutionists were satisfied that the NDT could explain evolution. In the 1990’s we know too much about molecular biology to be satisfied.
Genetic rearrangements don’t work because they can’t build up the necessary information. Moreover they don’t seem to be random. Copying errors don’t work because the chance is too small that they could build up the necessary information. The only way to make copying errors work is to declare convergence impossible. But convergence is too pervasive in the living world to permit that option. If copying errors are the variation of the NDT, then the theory predicts the important events of evolution to be nearly impossible. --- (Copying errors, even if stored as potential recombination, cannot provide the random variation needed by the NDT; If there can be no convergence when there are a million potential adaptive mutations, there surely can be none when there are 10 to the 1,998 power of them.) --- If a theory predicts events to be nearly impossible then one cannot justifiably say that it explains those events. If the NDT cannot explain what it claims to be the most important events of evolution, we must reject it.
– Dr. Lee Spetner
QuoteNot even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory
The argument "for" Creation doesn't even have to be made here. The argument "against" Evolution is just too strong. If it fails the test at its foundation, it doesn't matter how well you can "stack the bones" based on "looks."
kallend 1,647
There isn't an argument for creationism in any sense that any scientist would recognize, and there is no objective evidence at all in favor of an "intelligent designer". Just because the evidence for evolution isn't absolute doesn't mean it's not overwhelming.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
pajarito 0
QuoteThere isn't an argument for creationism in any sense that any scientist would recognize, and there is no objective evidence at all in favor of an "intelligent designer". Just because the evidence for evolution isn't absolute doesn't mean it's not overwhelming.
You put your faith in one and I put mine in another. I just wish you'd call it what it is instead of hiding behind what you want/wish/desperately need to be "good science."
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuoteThere isn't an argument for creationism in any sense that any scientist would recognize, and there is no objective evidence at all in favor of an "intelligent designer". Just because the evidence for evolution isn't absolute doesn't mean it's not overwhelming.
You put your faith in one and I put mine in another. I just wish you'd call it what it is instead of hiding behind what you want/wish/desperately need to be "good science."
Your abuse of the word "faith" in this manner to mischaracterize scientific understanding based on a body of evidence that is not yet complete is absolutely tortured. It is modern face of the very same intellectual dishonesty once used to justify the burning of witches.
pajarito 0
I realize that it is very upsetting for something to fall apart that you've always been told. However, intellectual honesty requires the following:
There aren’t enough “billions of years” to explain away some of this stuff. No matter how much you want it to be true.
QuoteIf the NDT cannot explain what it claims to be the most important events of evolution, we must reject it. – Dr. Lee Spetner
There aren’t enough “billions of years” to explain away some of this stuff. No matter how much you want it to be true.
JackC 0
QuoteThere aren?t enough ?billions of years? to explain away some of this stuff. No matter how much you want it to be true.
And yet godidit is completely believable.
You guys crack me up.
pajarito 0
QuoteAnd yet godidit is completely believable.
You guys crack me up.
I guess we're not talking about "Origin of the species, where do you stand?" anymore. I'm not even arguing for God in these posts. I'm just saying that you may want to pick another theory to believe in or at least hope for some modification to the current one (again).
Andy9o8 0
QuoteI realize that it is very upsetting for something to fall apart that you've always been told.
The only thing I find upsetting is otherwise intelligent, educated people in industrialized nations in the 21st Century sacrificing the rational side of their intellects to enable the burning of witches. It's embarrassing. More than that, it's shameful.
JackC 0
QuoteI'm just saying that you may want to pick another theory to believe in or at least hope for some modification to the current one (again).
I think the current evolutionary theory is doing fine. Perhaps it is your understanding of it that requires modification?
<
I've heard (somewhere?) that water can be turned in to wine and some fishes and scraps of bread can feed a host of folks.... I could be wrong tho'
.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites