Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[joelr]

I know taste buds are important. But that doesn't prove they came through evolution. Once again -Just because something would (come in handy) really help us out doesn't mean that it would evolve.

Not what you originally said -

"The article didn't prove that either. And I wasn't saying taste wasn't important. I was saying you could survive by eating without the food tasting wonderful - that was the point. So it wasn't a necessity for foods to evolve with different tastes or for tastebuds to be able to enjoy it to have evolved.

It was explained that taste buds actually DO contribute to the survival of an animal, and guess what........move that goalpost, as all apologists do.
Maybe Vishnu gave us tastebuds, or Inanna in her wisdom wanted us to enjoy taste. But it looks like it's just more evolution.

Sure apples are an excellent incubator and method of reproduction. God knew what he was doing didn't he? All you are providing about the apple coming thru evolution is pure conjecture. Nothing you can prove.

YOUR WORDS -
"What would be the cause for a tree to evolve into an apple tree?"

So you get an explanation and what do you do? !00% bad apologetics. Take the reasonable explanation and instead of saying "that makes sense", you move the goal post. "Oh now you explained it that still doesn't mean god didn't do it that way".


Yet, you asked. You will just keep playing games because you are not at all interested in what is true.

And even then, there is an explanation of how the modern apple came about from human caused evolution and crossbreeding. No Gods here. Still. Ironic you end with "nothing you can prove" when all we have is evidence in the world for evolution. For Yahweh we have re-worked stories from older religions.

Exploring the origins of the apple

Apples originally evolved in the wild to entice ancient megafauna to disperse their seeds. More recently, humans began spreading the trees along the Silk Road with other familiar crops. Dispersing the apple trees led to their domestication.

www.sciencedaily.com

Summary:Apples originally evolved in the wild to entice ancient megafauna to disperse their seeds. More recently, humans began spreading the trees along the Silk Road with other familiar crops. Dispersing the apple trees led to their domestication.
Recent archaeological finds of ancient preserved apple seeds across Europe and West Asia combined with historical, paleontological, and recently published genetic data are presenting a fascinating new narrative for one of our most familiar fruits. In this study, Robert Spengler of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History traces the history of the apple from its wild origins, noting that it was originally spread by ancient megafauna and later as a process of trade along the Silk Road. These processes allowed for the development of the varieties that we know today.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

of course it is a religion

No

and needs to be removed from all public schools and public funding.

Why?

And replaced with what? Lemme guess: your religion?

 

[joelr]

No macro evolution is not occurring and that is verified by the complete absence of any partially developed organs of functionality in all living things. And macro evolution never occurred and this is verified by the millions of chains of missing links which are all still missing. And macro evolution can never occur and this is verified by the fact that genes can not arise from random mutations especially with sexual reproduction.

1). There are vestigial organs as well as rudimentary organs, Vestigal organs are also called - partially developed useless organs. which are exactly what you are talking about.
Wisdom tooth, Appendix, Body hairs, Coccyx, are some vestigial organs in human body.




2). MISSING LINK is a strawman anti-evolution term used by apologists who don't understand evolution.
"The chain metaphor that “missing link” implies would have us looking for straight lines, when the reality of evolution is much more discursive. Not every fossil creature can be slotted in as a direct ancestor to something alive today. That’s why paleontologists have come to abhor the term: it obscures the true pattern of evolutionary change."

3). Macroevolution: Examples from the Primate World​

Macroevolution: Examples from the Primate World

What is macroevolution? Why is it important? How can macroevolutionary thinking help with interpreting patterns of primate evolution?

www.nature.com

What is Macroevolution?​

The tree of life has many branches that all connect to a common ancestor, and the diversity of life on the tree results from evolutionary processes. Just as we organize life on earth into hierarchies, we would like to do the same for evolutionary processes and patterns. Thus, many scientists propose that evolution can be divided into two distinct hierarchical processes -- microevolution and macroevolution -- although the distinction between them is somewhat artificial. Microevolution describes mechanisms that alter the frequencies of alleles in gene pools within species (Rexnick & Ricklefs 2009). These mechanisms include mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection. Theory suggests that the effects of these processes accumulate over time and can sometimes result in the divergence of populations and the birth of new species. In contrast, macroevolution describes patterns on the tree of life at a grand scale across vast time periods. Many different patterns can be observed across the tree of life at a grand scale (Figure 1), including stability, gradual change, rapid change, adaptive radiations, extinctions, the co-evolution of two or more species, and convergent evolution in traits between species -- just to name a few. Macroevolutionary studies tend to draw heavily from the fossil record. Fossils document the emergence of new life forms, how their geographic distribution changed over time, and ultimately when they went extinct. In contrast, microevolutionary changes are not frequently observed in the fossil record because the processes that govern evolutionary change within species are thought to occur over much shorter time scales. Thus, macroevolution is centered on explaining evolutionary patterns above the species level (Rexnick & Ricklefs 2009), and those who study it are searching for the ‘organizing principles' that explain these patterns.

Are there examples of macroevolution on our twig of the tree of life?​

Patterns of macroevolution are easy to spot on the tree of life when one considers big events like the abrupt appearance of tetrapods in the fossil record, long periods of stasis like that observed in sharks and crocodiles, and adaptive radiations including the (fairly!) recent diversification of mammals that began about 70 million years ago (mya). As one moves out along the branches of the tree of life, the processes that produced the rich patterns of biodiversity along a particular twig can be harder to understand and interpret.

Yet, there are many examples of macroevolutionary phenomena found in the order Primates, including stasis, adaptive radiations, extinctions of entire lineages, co-evolution, and convergent evolution.

Adaptive radiations and stasis -- Phylogenetic trees across the order Primates

Recent studies have provided new insights about the tempo and mode of primate evolution using phylogenetic trees from genetic data gathered across the genomes of many extant primate lineages (Fabre et al. 2009, Perelman et al. 2011). These studies have revealed that the tempo and mode of evolution among the primates have been punctuated by the persistence of ancient relic lineages (i.e., stasis), bursts of speciation that may be consistent with adaptive radiations, and even by ongoing speciation that is governed by microevolutionary processes. Perelman et al. (2011) recently constructed a primate phylogenetic tree for 61 primate genera (Figure 2). The long branch that separates Tarsiers from other primates suggests that this group is an ancient relict lineage that has remained in stasis relative to other primates. In contrast, the Lemuriformes part of the tree has many early short branches followed by some long branches in the descendants (see Figure 1), which suggests that the ancestors of extant lemurs experienced a rapid adaptive radiation that likely coincided with its colonization of Madagascar about 62-65 mya (Perelman et al. 2011).



Phylogenetic trees also allow for comparing and contrasting the tempo and mode of evolution among different groups of primates inferred from fossil and genetic data. For instance, has evolution proceeded differently in New World monkeys versus Old World monkeys? New World monkeys last shared a common ancestor with Old World monkeys about 30-50 mya, but the diversification of New World monkeys and the divergence times of these lineages are not well understood. The fossil record suggests that New World monkeys have been in stasis following their initial colonization of the Americas, while Old World monkeys show evidence of ‘faunal turnover' that closely matches the patterns predicted under the punctuated equilibrium model (Delson& Rosenberger 1984, Rosenberger 2002). Hodgson et al. (2009) used molecular data to construct phylogenetic trees and to estimate divergence dates for many New World monkey species to examine the hypothesis that they have been in stasis relative to other primates. They found that New World monkeys have experienced both successive radiations and stasis during their evolution. Specifically, they found that the earliest New World monkey fossils were much older than the divergence dates they estimated for the extant New World monkey species. Using this evidence, along with patterns observed on phylogenetic trees, these researchers suggested that there was an early radiation of New World monkey ancestors followed by a period of stasis and then the extinction of most of this group prior to the Miocene. Following this period, the survivors of the original radiation then experienced a burst of rapid diversification into what would become the extant New World monkey ‘crown lineages' (Hodgson et al. 2009).

Adaptive radiations and extinctions -- The rise and fall of Miocene Apes

Phylogenetic trees based on genetic data cannot reveal much about what might have caused adaptive radiations or extinctions. Careful examination of fossils combined with an understanding about what Earth's environment was like when these fossils were living can be used to infer what might have precipitated different macroevolutionary events. For example, during the Miocene the ancestors of Old World monkeys and apes experienced both radiations and extinctions that have been linked to climate change (Harrison 2010). In the early Miocene, primates found in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula were a diverse group that occupied tropical forests and woodlands (Figure 3). During the mid-Miocene, Africa reconnected with Eurasia and a major period of global warming caused the expansion of tropical habitats northward. These developments allowed the nascent hominoid lineage to branch off and colonize newly available Eurasian habitats, leading to a major proliferation of ape species across much of Eurasia. However, around 9.6 mya, a major shift to drier climates created more open habitats that led to a decline of hominoid taxa in Eurasia. By 5 mya, most ape species were extinct, except for a few that eventually led to modern-day orangutans and gibbons ( Moyà-Solà et al. 2009, Harrison 2010).

 

[Bthoth]

I did not ask that question

I do not see you comprehending the physics of nature at all.

The post I am quoting is perfect evidence.

No they store particles is supercooled vacuum chambers to allow quantum weirdness to continue and avoid decoherance.

Talking about life, not an experiment. Entanglement is a property of nature, not a created property of QM.

No, you have to supercool particles so they return to their original undisturbed state where they have not collapsed into one wavefunction.

There it is again. You actually have no idea about the properties of light (em) or nature.

I don't know how this makes sense?




Mass and energy are equivalent. This is basic special relativity. E^2=m^2 c^4+p^2 c^2

relativity has nothing to do with living systems. The equivalence has nothing to do with living systems.

I don't know what you mean by light and mass work together? Photons bounce off mass and leave behind a small amount of energy.

I am NOW well aware of that!

This, I don't see how this makes sense?

"
Once the process is occurring, the living system is. Not an outside cause but naturally occurring based on the energy upon the particles (mass). When in an environment that enables the oscillations to sustain itself, the light (energy) will consume to sustain itself.

of course not. You have no idea how a living system works.

Nothing different than what is observed but the perspective is different. That's it. The living process is based on energy upon mass sustaining itself. The energy of nature is not 'what is usable' but the light (electromagnetic fields) oscillating upon mass (elements). That's the 'perspective' to identify/observe... there of describe."

Learn. Stop trying to argue.

Mass and energy are equivalent, that is their connection. I don't understand where you are going with it?

Another complete mess of nonsense, just to argue.

Yes mass and energy are involved with life, I don't see where intent comes in?

Because you do not identify (comprehend) how living systems work. You are so off in left field that you have brought up GR and e=mc2

Life uses energy but in the end it obeys conservation.

IN a closed system? What closed system? Again, you have no comprehension of what you are writing. Just making generalizations on theories as if they apply.

I don't understand what you are talking about so telling me what is or isn't related is pointless?

Exactly. You actually have no understanding on the topic! Clearly!

GR is for discussing the spacetime metric tensor,a geometrical description of how mass warps spacetime. You need several tensors, Einstein, Ricci, Reinmann, QM also would not apply to the molecular level.

Perfect evidence of what i have said, you have no idea what you are writing.

Qm is specifically about the molecular level (atoms and energy) but you are lost.

General Relativity. I still don't know what is being discussed.

I know, GR is for the super big modeling. Why do you keep bringing it up?

no it's the formula for potential energy. You asked the question in post #1647 "What is causing the potential? "

Potential energy is determined by the position of the object in a gravity well.

Complete rubbish! Gravity well??????? About living systems.................?

Yes living systems use energy. It is related to conservation because they always end up creating more entropy and energy is conserved.

I should just stop there.

There is a classical EM field, mass absorbs and reflects some light. I don't know about the motion?

If you have no idea about how light affects mass, then why are you posting to argue on living systems?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

1). There are vestigial organs as well as rudimentary organs, Vestigal organs are also called - partially developed useless organs. which are exactly what you are talking about.
Wisdom tooth, Appendix, Body hairs, Coccyx, are some vestigial organs in human body.




2). MISSING LINK is a strawman anti-evolution term used by apologists who don't understand evolution.
"The chain metaphor that “missing link” implies would have us looking for straight lines, when the reality of evolution is much more discursive. Not every fossil creature can be slotted in as a direct ancestor to something alive today. That’s why paleontologists have come to abhor the term: it obscures the true pattern of evolutionary change."

3). Macroevolution: Examples from the Primate World​

Macroevolution: Examples from the Primate World

What is macroevolution? Why is it important? How can macroevolutionary thinking help with interpreting patterns of primate evolution?

www.nature.com

What is Macroevolution?​

The tree of life has many branches that all connect to a common ancestor, and the diversity of life on the tree results from evolutionary processes. Just as we organize life on earth into hierarchies, we would like to do the same for evolutionary processes and patterns. Thus, many scientists propose that evolution can be divided into two distinct hierarchical processes -- microevolution and macroevolution -- although the distinction between them is somewhat artificial. Microevolution describes mechanisms that alter the frequencies of alleles in gene pools within species (Rexnick & Ricklefs 2009). These mechanisms include mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection. Theory suggests that the effects of these processes accumulate over time and can sometimes result in the divergence of populations and the birth of new species. In contrast, macroevolution describes patterns on the tree of life at a grand scale across vast time periods. Many different patterns can be observed across the tree of life at a grand scale (Figure 1), including stability, gradual change, rapid change, adaptive radiations, extinctions, the co-evolution of two or more species, and convergent evolution in traits between species -- just to name a few. Macroevolutionary studies tend to draw heavily from the fossil record. Fossils document the emergence of new life forms, how their geographic distribution changed over time, and ultimately when they went extinct. In contrast, microevolutionary changes are not frequently observed in the fossil record because the processes that govern evolutionary change within species are thought to occur over much shorter time scales. Thus, macroevolution is centered on explaining evolutionary patterns above the species level (Rexnick & Ricklefs 2009), and those who study it are searching for the ‘organizing principles' that explain these patterns.

Are there examples of macroevolution on our twig of the tree of life?​

Patterns of macroevolution are easy to spot on the tree of life when one considers big events like the abrupt appearance of tetrapods in the fossil record, long periods of stasis like that observed in sharks and crocodiles, and adaptive radiations including the (fairly!) recent diversification of mammals that began about 70 million years ago (mya). As one moves out along the branches of the tree of life, the processes that produced the rich patterns of biodiversity along a particular twig can be harder to understand and interpret.

Yet, there are many examples of macroevolutionary phenomena found in the order Primates, including stasis, adaptive radiations, extinctions of entire lineages, co-evolution, and convergent evolution.

Adaptive radiations and stasis -- Phylogenetic trees across the order Primates

Recent studies have provided new insights about the tempo and mode of primate evolution using phylogenetic trees from genetic data gathered across the genomes of many extant primate lineages (Fabre et al. 2009, Perelman et al. 2011). These studies have revealed that the tempo and mode of evolution among the primates have been punctuated by the persistence of ancient relic lineages (i.e., stasis), bursts of speciation that may be consistent with adaptive radiations, and even by ongoing speciation that is governed by microevolutionary processes. Perelman et al. (2011) recently constructed a primate phylogenetic tree for 61 primate genera (Figure 2). The long branch that separates Tarsiers from other primates suggests that this group is an ancient relict lineage that has remained in stasis relative to other primates. In contrast, the Lemuriformes part of the tree has many early short branches followed by some long branches in the descendants (see Figure 1), which suggests that the ancestors of extant lemurs experienced a rapid adaptive radiation that likely coincided with its colonization of Madagascar about 62-65 mya (Perelman et al. 2011).



Phylogenetic trees also allow for comparing and contrasting the tempo and mode of evolution among different groups of primates inferred from fossil and genetic data. For instance, has evolution proceeded differently in New World monkeys versus Old World monkeys? New World monkeys last shared a common ancestor with Old World monkeys about 30-50 mya, but the diversification of New World monkeys and the divergence times of these lineages are not well understood. The fossil record suggests that New World monkeys have been in stasis following their initial colonization of the Americas, while Old World monkeys show evidence of ‘faunal turnover' that closely matches the patterns predicted under the punctuated equilibrium model (Delson& Rosenberger 1984, Rosenberger 2002). Hodgson et al. (2009) used molecular data to construct phylogenetic trees and to estimate divergence dates for many New World monkey species to examine the hypothesis that they have been in stasis relative to other primates. They found that New World monkeys have experienced both successive radiations and stasis during their evolution. Specifically, they found that the earliest New World monkey fossils were much older than the divergence dates they estimated for the extant New World monkey species. Using this evidence, along with patterns observed on phylogenetic trees, these researchers suggested that there was an early radiation of New World monkey ancestors followed by a period of stasis and then the extinction of most of this group prior to the Miocene. Following this period, the survivors of the original radiation then experienced a burst of rapid diversification into what would become the extant New World monkey ‘crown lineages' (Hodgson et al. 2009).

Adaptive radiations and extinctions -- The rise and fall of Miocene Apes

Phylogenetic trees based on genetic data cannot reveal much about what might have caused adaptive radiations or extinctions. Careful examination of fossils combined with an understanding about what Earth's environment was like when these fossils were living can be used to infer what might have precipitated different macroevolutionary events. For example, during the Miocene the ancestors of Old World monkeys and apes experienced both radiations and extinctions that have been linked to climate change (Harrison 2010). In the early Miocene, primates found in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula were a diverse group that occupied tropical forests and woodlands (Figure 3). During the mid-Miocene, Africa reconnected with Eurasia and a major period of global warming caused the expansion of tropical habitats northward. These developments allowed the nascent hominoid lineage to branch off and colonize newly available Eurasian habitats, leading to a major proliferation of ape species across much of Eurasia. However, around 9.6 mya, a major shift to drier climates created more open habitats that led to a decline of hominoid taxa in Eurasia. By 5 mya, most ape species were extinct, except for a few that eventually led to modern-day orangutans and gibbons ( Moyà-Solà et al. 2009, Harrison 2010).

wow that was all assumptions

 

[McBell]

of course it is a religion and needs to be removed from all public schools and public funding.

Nope
Not even close

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nope
Not even close

Sure is. A religion is just how people should live, based on where we came from and what happens when we die. So evolution is indeed a religion and a false one at that.

 

[Esteban X]

Sure is. A religion is just how people should live, based on where we came from and what happens when we die. So evolution is indeed a religion and a false one at that.

I don't see your reasoning there. Evolution merely observes what happens and how it occurs, within the confines of its particular concern. It says nothing about how people should live. Please elaborate

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I don't see your reasoning there. Evolution merely observes what happens and how it occurs, within the confines of its particular concern. It says nothing about how people should live. Please elaborate

Abiogenesis, macroevolution and the Big Bang are not happening.

 

[Esteban X]

Abiogenesis, macroevolution and the Big Bang are not happening.

Well they did and are happening, but how do these undeniable facts constitute a religion. They do nothing to advise how people should live their lives.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Well they did and are happening, but how do these undeniable facts constitute a religion. They do nothing to advise how people should live their lives.

Of course, mankind makes its own definition of sin.
So according to you, what is the answer to these questions.
And what do they teach is morally correct in public schools?
Is the unborn a child?
Is it murder to abort a child?
Are there only 2 genders? Can someone change gender? Is homosexuality a sin?
Is fornication sin?
Does God exist?
Is the Bible the true word of God?
Did evolution happen?
How old is the universe and earth?

 

[Esteban X]

Of course, mankind makes its own definition of sin.
So according to you, what is the answer to these questions.
And what do they teach is morally correct in public schools?
Is the unborn a child?
Is it murder to abort a child?
Are there only 2 genders? Can someone change gender? Is homosexuality a sin?
Is fornication sin?
Does God exist?
Is the Bible the true word of God?
Did evolution happen?
How old is the universe and earth?

Aside from the last two, what have any of these to do with Abiogenesis, Macroevolution and the Big Bang. Did/Does evolution happen? Undeniably. How old is the universe? 13.8 Billion years, approx. How old is the Earth? 4 Billion years, approx.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Aside from the last two, what have any of these to do with Abiogenesis, Macroevolution and the Big Bang. Did/Does evolution happen? Undeniably. How old is the universe? 13.8 Billion years, approx. How old is the Earth? 4 Billion years, approx.

And wrong on all three. Macro evolution is a kind producing an offspring of another kind. Dogs beget dogs, cats beget cats, people beget people, etc. And all the evidence, logic. facts, physics, biology, chemistry, math, statistics and probability, and sanity refute evolution, billions of years and abiogenesis.

 

[McBell]

Macro evolution is a kind producing an offspring of another kind.

Nope
Not even close

And all the evidence, logic. facts, physics, biology, chemistry, math, statistics and probability, and sanity refute evolution, billions of years and abiogenesis.

Nope
Not even close

 

[Esteban X]

And wrong on all three. Macro evolution is a kind producing an offspring of another kind. Dogs beget dogs, cats beget cats, people beget people, etc. And all the evidence, logic. facts, physics, biology, chemistry, math, statistics and probability, and sanity refute evolution, billions of years and abiogenesis.

You've dodged my initial question. How is evolution a religion by your definition?

 

[joelr]

I do not see you comprehending the physics of nature at all.

Considering you haven't said one single thing about physics that makes sense, I don't care.
Again, I did not ask what QM has to do with life.

The post I am quoting is perfect evidence.

If you feel you have evidence of something , state what that evidence is, and what it's evidence of. Because once again, I have no idea waht you are talking about.

Talking about life, not an experiment. Entanglement is a property of nature, not a created property of QM.

Entanglement only happens in QM. There are theories that it might be part of some biological processes.

There it is again. You actually have no idea about the properties of light (em) or nature.

No that is how you entangle particles - "No, you have to supercool particles so they return to their original undisturbed state where they have not collapsed into one wavefunction."

I let it pass once but not your constant accusations of "you have no idea" and then writing nothing but vague nonsense shows insecurity and severe lack of scientific knowledge.
Not a problem until you start bothering other people with your issues.

You STILL haven made clear which theory of light you are talking about classical EM fields or quantum photon fields.

At this point I'm quite sure you have zero knowledge of classical EM, Maxwell's equations, and any of the early pre-QM physics. But who know?
I assume you are talking about classical EM fields. So you would be familiar with the basic 4 laws.
What do the divergence of the electric field and rho/over/zero have in common?

relativity has nothing to do with living systems. The equivalence has nothing to do with living systems.

Instead of saying it's not what you are talking about why don't you now explain what you are talking about? Please don't tell me we are going to have an entire post where you again fail to state your point?

I am NOW well aware of that!

Yes but I actually said - "I don't know what you mean by light and mass work together?" So why don't you explain what you are talking about instead of vague "of course I knew that" answers?

of course not. You have no idea how a living system works.

I asked what this means - "Once the process is occurring, the living system is. Not an outside cause but naturally occurring based on the energy upon the particles (mass). When in an environment that enables the oscillations to sustain itself, the light (energy) will consume to sustain itself."

It sounds like made up nonsense.
What oscillations?
What is consuming light?
Light is not energy?
What does "energy upon the particles " even mean?


I asked what you meant and instead of clarifying you just make acusations that I don't know how living systems work?
I'm getting the picture now that what I actually don't understand is your made up nonsense of world salad that means nothing.

So can you explain this better or not? Because as written it sounds like total jibberish.

Learn. Stop trying to argue.

So now you are playing games and I caught you. I don't think you are for real.

So you said something I didn't understand.
I wrote and said there are things I don't understand.

You wrote back this - "Such as?"

So I clarified and gave you the lines you wrote that sounded like make believe, I gave you this as an example -

(ME) This, I don't see how this makes sense?


(Me giving an example of what I don't understand from you) - Once the process is occurring, the living system is. Not an outside cause but naturally occurring based on the energy upon the particles (mass). When in an environment that enables the oscillations to sustain itself, the light (energy) will consume to sustain itself.

Nothing different than what is observed but the perspective is different. That's it. The living process is based on energy upon mass sustaining itself. The energy of nature is not 'what is usable' but the light (electromagnetic fields) oscillating upon mass (elements). That's the 'perspective' to identify/observe... there of describe." (end)


NOW, instead of clarifying what it means, explaining it in a different way, you wrote:


"Learn. Stop trying to argue."

WTF? First, I'm trying to learn, hence the question.
But "stop trying to argue" is just out of control nonsense?

Clearly you are just playing games of actually have no clue what you even mean. The rest of this post will be you playing dodgeball word salad I'm sure........

Another complete mess of nonsense, just to argue.

Yup, I knew it. Mass and energy are equivalent, that is not nonsense, but once again I ask you to clarify. You didn't. And won't.

Because you do not identify (comprehend) how living systems work. You are so off in left field that you have brought up GR and e=mc2

No, I'm asking you to explain it because your words sound like nonsense. I see you are not going to and I suspect you have no idea what you are talking about.

IN a closed system? What closed system? Again, you have no comprehension of what you are writing. Just making generalizations on theories as if they apply.

The universe is a closed system. Again, dodgeball word salad. Since I have no idea what you are talking about I'm guessing.

When one has something real to say they don't chastise another person, they simply say "no not that " and EXPLAIN what they mean. Watch now as you fail to ever even attempt to explain when I called out your nonsense.

Exactly. You actually have no understanding on the topic! Clearly!

You mean the topic I asked you to explain over and over. Yeah I said that.

Perfect evidence of what i have said, you have no idea what you are writing.

That was a valid description of the geometry used in GR. I have no idea what you are trying to say, and you won't clarify, just tell me "nope that's not it", over and over.
(hint: because you are not actually saying anything)

Qm is specifically about the molecular level (atoms and energy) but you are lost.

I must be really lost, in an alternate universe, when I studied QM it was about the quantum realm. Particles, wave functions, quantum fields, quantum electrodynamics.................but apparently it's actually about the MOLECULAR LEVEL!!?!?!

Wow, thank you strange make up wu-science guy, for clearing that up.

I know, GR is for the super big modeling. Why do you keep bringing it up?

Well funny thing, I brought it up because you SAID THIS - "GR is for describing big."

Thanks for the gaslighting mr troll but sorry no, GR is not really for modeling big things like space travel, we still use Newtonian mechanics. GR describes gravity at a smaller more refined scale which is how we found the correction in the orbit of Mercury or saw the neutron star and black hole solution.

Complete rubbish! Gravity well??????? About living systems.................?

Well than trash man, you go ahead and tell me why you used the word "potential" in relation to whatever it is you are talking about .

I'll say it again even though at this point I know you are just making junk up. Since I don't know what you are talking about (nothing is what you are talking about) I'm making guesses based on some words. Since I don't know, it makes EVEN LESS SENSE to comeback with insults and pretend bafflement at why I bring something up. That just looks REALLY insecure. What one would do if they actually had a theory, is simply explain what they mean.

2 more, are we getting any kind of explanation? Of course not.

I should just stop there.

Or you could keep pretending like I don't understand your words because it's my fault and not that it's a bunch of word salad nonsense?

Interesting though, you still haven't even tried to explain anything. Last chance........

 

[joelr]

I should just stop there.

If you have no idea about how light affects mass, then why are you posting to argue on living systems?

You probably should have, but you want to sound clever by berating me.

So speaking of how an electromagnetic wave interacts with things,

(∆p) - the momentum transferred is related to the energy absorbed by ( what?)

∆u - given here
–
c

 

[joelr]

wow that was all assumptions

So the creationists tell you. But, we also have evidence. Please tell me which evidence you don't understand,

1)vestigial organs - Wisdom tooth, Appendix, Body hairs, Coccyx,

Organs that we see had a function and no longer do, from evidence.


2) macroevolution - describes patterns on the tree of life at a grand scale across vast time periods. Many different patterns can be observed across the tree of life at a grand scale , including stability, gradual change, rapid change, adaptive radiations, extinctions, the co-evolution of two or more species, and convergent evolution in traits between species -- just to name a few. Macroevolutionary studies tend to draw heavily from the fossil record. EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



THIS IS ALL DIRECT EVIDENCE OF MACRO EVOLUTION





Yet, there are many examples of macroevolutionary phenomena found in the order Primates, including stasis, adaptive radiations, extinctions of entire lineages, co-evolution, and convergent evolution.

Adaptive radiations and stasis -- Phylogenetic trees across the order Primates

Recent studies have provided new insights about the tempo and mode of primate evolution using phylogenetic trees from genetic data gathered across the genomes of many extant primate lineages (Fabre et al. 2009, Perelman et al. 2011). These studies have revealed that the tempo and mode of evolution among the primates have been punctuated by the persistence of ancient relic lineages (i.e., stasis), bursts of speciation that may be consistent with adaptive radiations, and even by ongoing speciation that is governed by microevolutionary processes. Perelman et al. (2011) recently constructed a primate phylogenetic tree for 61 primate genera (Figure 2). The long branch that separates Tarsiers from other primates suggests that this group is an ancient relict lineage that has remained in stasis relative to other primates. In contrast, the Lemuriformes part of the tree has many early short branches followed by some long branches in the descendants (see Figure 1), which suggests that the ancestors of extant lemurs experienced a rapid adaptive radiation that likely coincided with its colonization of Madagascar about 62-65 mya (Perelman et al. 2011).



Phylogenetic trees also allow for comparing and contrasting the tempo and mode of evolution among different groups of primates inferred from fossil and genetic data. For instance, has evolution proceeded differently in New World monkeys versus Old World monkeys? New World monkeys last shared a common ancestor with Old World monkeys about 30-50 mya, but the diversification of New World monkeys and the divergence times of these lineages are not well understood. The fossil record suggests that New World monkeys have been in stasis following their initial colonization of the Americas, while Old World monkeys show evidence of ‘faunal turnover' that closely matches the patterns predicted under the punctuated equilibrium model (Delson& Rosenberger 1984, Rosenberger 2002). Hodgson et al. (2009) used molecular data to construct phylogenetic trees and to estimate divergence dates for many New World monkey species to examine the hypothesis that they have been in stasis relative to other primates. They found that New World monkeys have experienced both successive radiations and stasis during their evolution. Specifically, they found that the earliest New World monkey fossils were much older than the divergence dates they estimated for the extant New World monkey species. Using this evidence, along with patterns observed on phylogenetic trees, these researchers suggested that there was an early radiation of New World monkey ancestors followed by a period of stasis and then the extinction of most of this group prior to the Miocene. Following this period, the survivors of the original radiation then experienced a burst of rapid diversification into what would become the extant New World monkey ‘crown lineages' (Hodgson et al. 2009).

Adaptive radiations and extinctions -- The rise and fall of Miocene Apes

Phylogenetic trees based on genetic data cannot reveal much about what might have caused adaptive radiations or extinctions. Careful examination of fossils combined with an understanding about what Earth's environment was like when these fossils were living can be used to infer what might have precipitated different macroevolutionary events. For example, during the Miocene the ancestors of Old World monkeys and apes experienced both radiations and extinctions that have been linked to climate change (Harrison 2010). In the early Miocene, primates found in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula were a diverse group that occupied tropical forests and woodlands (Figure 3). During the mid-Miocene, Africa reconnected with Eurasia and a major period of global warming caused the expansion of tropical habitats northward. These developments allowed the nascent hominoid lineage to branch off and colonize newly available Eurasian habitats, leading to a major proliferation of ape species across much of Eurasia. However, around 9.6 mya, a major shift to drier climates created more open habitats that led to a decline of hominoid taxa in Eurasia. By 5 mya, most ape species were extinct, except for a few that eventually led to modern-day orangutans and gibbons ( Moyà-Solà et al. 2009, Harrison 2010).

 

[joelr]

Of course, mankind makes its own definition of sin.

OF course it does, based on well being. If we used the Bible we would stone unruly children. Take women and children as plunder of war. Kill every living thing in cities where they worshipped a different god. Graven images, being one of the first commandments would be a death penalty, work on Sunday, death, by stone.
Women would be silent in church, by law, unless speaking revelation.

we would buy slaves from the heathen around us. Their children would also be permanent slaves.
Freedom of religion would be illegal as the worst sin is denial of the holy spirit.
But even religious people encourage freedom of religion so we make out morality. Jesus said it's better to become enemies with family if they don't believe. Religious people don't follow this, because we make up our morals.

So according to you, what is the answer to these questions.

Same thing we do now, have laws based on secular morality. All given by the Greeks.

And what do they teach is morally correct in public schools?

Basic Greek ethics, compassion, golden rule, and so on, there are many sources.

Is the unborn a child?
Is it murder to abort a child?

People should be making a good choice. If the pregnancy is a serious threat to the mothers life she should have the legal option.

Are there only 2 genders? Can someone change gender?

OF course there are, even the Talmud iterates eight genders, for example.

Zachar, male
Nekevah, ,female
Androgynos, having male and female characteristics
Tumtum, lacking sexual characteristics
Aylonit hamah, identified female at birth but later naturally developing male characteristics
Saris adam, male at birth, develop female characteristics through human intervention

and 2 more....

Is homosexuality a sin?

"Sin" is a thing from a myth, you can do or not do sin but you cannot impost your myths onto others. Sexuality should not be regulated by law among adults.
Just as you would not want something from Islam to become a law.

Is fornication sin?

Maybe, that is between you and the deity in your myth. It's not illegal.

Does God exist?

No evidence for any human concept of god.

Is the Bible the true word of God?

As equally as the Quran or any Hindu text, or even Zeus scripture.

Did evolution happen?

Study evolutionary biology

How old is the universe and earth?

Universe is 13,8 billion years. Earth 5 billion. Many lines of evidence for both.

 

[joelr]

And wrong on all three. Macro evolution is a kind producing an offspring of another kind. Dogs beget dogs, cats beget cats, people beget people, etc. And all the evidence, logic. facts, physics, biology, chemistry, math, statistics and probability, and sanity refute evolution, billions of years and abiogenesis.

You haven't yet given evidence against evolution.

You ignore the fact that animals change gradual over millions of years, as the hominid fossil record eve shows.

You haven't given logic, facts, biology, chemistry, math, statistics and probability math to support your argument. ALL of those do exist for evolution and a 13 billion year old earth however.


You haven't given evidence against abiogenesis and every question you posed has been answered.


You also haven't given evidence for any god or the Bible except for "it's true because it says it's true". In which case all religious books are true.