Pogo
Well-Known Member
Her post's are also consistent with a Trolling hypothesis.Evidence that you don't understand evolutionary theory? You don't know yet that you don't?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Her post's are also consistent with a Trolling hypothesis.Evidence that you don't understand evolutionary theory? You don't know yet that you don't?
They are only 2 of the 5 evolutionary mechanisms.
Genetic Drift, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking are the 3 mechanisms.
I don’t think genetic drift is a relevant mechanism but who knows maybe I am wrong...(I dont hold this view in a strong way]I have noticed that you seem have the tendency to ignore the subject on Genetic Drift when it is brought up.
Granted, but the magic occurs when they work together……….but yes they are independent mechanisms you can have one without the otherPlus, Mutations are necessary for Natural Selection to occur, but you often bring them together, even though they are 2 completely different mechanisms.
no disagreement I apologize and admit my mistake if I ever sound as if i would disagree with thatMutations can occur among individual organisms, but whether these mutated genes are inherited by the next generations, may or may not happen, and in those cases when mutations are not inherited, then there are no evolutionary change via mutations.
Natural Selection, on the hand, isn't random, because the driving forces for evolutionary changes is caused by changes to the environment.
Environmental changes could be changes to the terrain, or to the climate, or changes to the availability of resources (eg drought or famine), etc, so when an environment have changed, it put selective pressures upon populations of species, to either be adaptable to changes or risk reduction in reproductive successes that could cause drop in population growths, or even extinction to certain species.
Mutations are not always responsible for selective changes, so I don’t think you really understand what you are talking about. Natural Selection and Mutations don’t always occur together, especially as they are 2 different mechanisms.
That is nice and fine if you are talking to yourself, but you are not and those definitions are very different than anyone else here is using. The language on this board is standard English with its associated definitions, if you would create an auto translate for your language there might be a lot less confusion.I am defining "Experiment" is a microcosm of reality as devised by others and "Experience" as muscle memory, direct observation, and direct learning with reality as feedback. I believe all true knowledge is experience this is why I have repeated some of others experiments for myself; to make them experience.
because no biologists used Lamarkinian Evolution or Lamarkinian Inheritance in the last hundred years.
Lamarkinism is not active taught at any universities, anywhere around the world, today.
Do you not understand that?
noLeroy.
Are you or haven’t you been a working biologist, or some other jobs that are related fields in biology?
Do you have the qualification(s) or ever being educated in some biological fields at tertiary level (eg bachelor, master, PhD, any university- or college- level qualification)?
Sure you won’t find a claim made by me, that is not supported by the majority (or at least a relevant number) of experts…………sometimes I have opinions that differ from experts, but I usually try to be very explicit that it is just my opinioni would leave things to the experts in genetics and molecular biology, as these 2 areas work closely with evolutionary biology, as I am novice in biology, like you.
Care to quote an error? Sure sometimes I make errors, but I always recognized them as suchEven I did ask you the questions about experiences & qualifications, I don’t think you ever worked as biologist, or medical doctor or paleontologist. You have made too many errors in the past, so clearly you didn’t study much in biology.
So you object to gross generalizations and then ask us to agree with one.Someone else here pointed out that the term creationism really cannot be properly applied to all who believe in a higher source that has intelligence over and beyond the creation. But that is not what I'm here to necessarily discuss.
So I have a question of you and possibly some others, do you believe that all changes of a particular species are due to random mutations?
Not until you actually learn the meanings of the words you use, prior to that, any answer will be, at best, misunderstood by you.Remains me to the LGBTQ+ community……………..you have more names than people,,,, but that is ok, I will stick to your definitions. I don’t care
Will you ever answer my question…………
¿do you think that one view (atheism or theism) is more likely to be true than the other?.........will you ever answer this question?
Unlike Darwin I won't jump to conclusions like God created consciousness or even that God is conscious. I won't jump to the conclusion that God or Gods exist at all.
The language on this board is standard English with its associated definitions, if you would create an auto translate for your language there might be a lot less confusion.
You should have learned the major mechanisms in high school biology. I assumed they were common knowledge -- till I began posting on RF. Mechanisms of Evolution | Biological Principles
So by what mechanism do they occur?
So by what mechanism do they occur?
Sounds like a dishonest and pathetic excuse for not answering my question.Not until you actually learn the meanings of the words you use, prior to that, any answer will be, at best, misunderstood by you.
Your words are, but as the discussion has shown re bottleneck, your definitions bear little resemblance to the definitions used by any of us familiar with the generally accepted definitions. Stating that white is the lack of reflected light and expecting us to accept this whenever we read your statements is not reasonable and not going to happen.These would be the kind of miracles in which scientists might believe.
Utter nonsense!!!
I am using standard English with standard definitions and you play word games by refusing to parse them as intended.
You might end up on my ignore list as word games is what gets people there.
The highest form of any modern language is to specifically state which definitions of words you are selecting. If you refuse to parse words correctly after I define them then I'd invite you not to respond at all. Of course I'd welcome any input into the definitions I select from an unabridged dictionary, I do not select words to suit your beliefs in miracles. I am well aware that most people don't appreciate the importance of experiment in the development of theory so this would be a legitimate topic of discussion. Refusing to parse the word as I intend is on you.
Not afraid at all, just tired of wasting time as are many with your logic and comprehension failures.Sounds like a dishonest and pathetic excuse for not answering my question.
All words have many definitions and definitions are subjective………….I am not wrong, just because I didn’t used your favorite definition of some words……….but as I told you before, who cares , for the purpose of this conversation I have no problem in sticking with your definitions
Will you ever answer my question?
Do you affirm that given the evidence, one view (atheism or theism) is more likely to be true than the other?
Why are you afraid of answering this question?
No disagreement………….It’s Natural Selection, not Mutations that eyes have evolved.
And they evolved because there are light. Light provides animals with the awareness of shapes, size and colours, through complex nervous organs, which provide feedback to the brains.
Did you know that the major of animals that inhabited the bottom of very ocean floors or oceanic trenches, where no light reached these creatures? The majority of those marine organisms are eyeless that inhabit in total darkness.
New Zealand used to have no humans or other natural predators on these islands, so birds like the kiwis didn’t require to flee from predators, so not only lost the their abilities to fly, their wings have become vestigial. When humans came, bringing other animals on to the islands, their population have dwindled dramatically.
Your words are, but as the discussion has shown re bottleneck, your definitions bear little resemblance to the definitions used by any of us familiar with the generally accepted definitions.
Really, you had the energy to write 3 or 4 comments “correcting” me on semantic issues , but you don’t have the energy for answering a YES or NO question?Not afraid at all, just tired of wasting time as are many with your logic and comprehension failures.
yes you doI have no problems understanding it.
You're the one who's having problems understanding your false analogy.
When you are talking about a cause for space-time, then invoking another "computer" to explain the origins of the "first" computer, is exactly what you are doing.
To invoke causality is to invoke temporal conditions. The very thing you are supposedly trying to explain.
I find it amusing to see complaints that others repeat beliefs sans evidence coming from sources that repeat their beliefs ad nauseum without ever providing any evidence.Your words are, but as the discussion has shown re bottleneck, your definitions bear little resemblance to the definitions used by any of us familiar with the generally accepted definitions. Stating that white is the lack of reflected light and expecting us to accept this whenever we read your statements is not reasonable and not going to happen.
It seems you should get your glasses.Hmm, maybe you are new here, but creationists are a subset of Christians who insist on a silly literal interpretation of Genesis. We designate them as such to differentiate them from the majority of Christians who understand reality..
Now you know.
The intellectual nudity is always around, the bigger question these days seems to be the number of children vs. adults.I find it amusing to see complaints that others repeat beliefs sans evidence coming from sources that repeat their beliefs ad nauseum without ever providing any evidence.
I think we all understand the language and words at a more than sufficient level to readily see the existence of that bold dichotomy and irony that gushes forth from it.
The emperor clearly cannot see his own nudity while complaining that others need to throw on clothes.
Really, so I am wrong, just because I am not using your own personal favorite defections?By definition of the words "cause" and "effects".