Evolution My ToE

[SkepticThinker]

That it 3xists and works today? Yes. That it was the same in the far past...no.

Maybe you could say something relevant to the point for a change.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You offer today's genome in connection with a genome from the far unknown past. Focus.

Oops, you missed it.
I suggest reading through those articles again. Pay close attention to the one talking about how when they mapped the genome of the S. meditteranea flatworm, the researchers were able to identify groups of genes that were shared between planarians and mammals. Which of course, is exactly what we should expect to find if evolution were a reality, which it is.


Your past state nonsense is completely irrelevant here. Besides that, it's just flat out made up and completely lacking in empirical evidence.

 

[dad]

Maybe you could say something relevant to the point for a change.

Don't blame others if you thought nature was the same and genetics etc with no evidence.

 

[dad]

Oops, you missed it.
I suggest reading through those articles again. Pay close attention to the one talking about how when they mapped the genome of the S. meditteranea flatworm, the researchers were able to identify groups of genes that were shared between planarians and mammals. Which of course, is exactly what we should expect to find if evolution were a reality, which it is.


Your past state nonsense is completely irrelevant here. Besides that, it's just flat out made up and completely lacking in empirical evidence.

It doesn't matter in the least what shares what with what now. The only question is why and whether the reason traits are shared is only the reason we know today in this nature i.e. offspring! In the former nature we do not know that to be the case. It is also not to be assumed that there was no creation either. You have run wild with your present nature beliefs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It doesn't matter in the least what shares what with what now. The only question is why and whether the reason traits are shared is only the reason we know today in this nature i.e. offspring! In the former nature we do not know that to be the case. It is also not to be assumed that there was no creation either. You have run wild with your present nature beliefs.

Of course it matters.

You make absolutely no sense.
You can't use this nonsense to evade the point over and over. Past state whatever nonsense doesn't make one bit of difference. It's irrelevant. Unless you want to continue to show that you have no idea what you're talking about. I suggest you do some reading on nested hierarchies to help your understanding on this matter. There are groups of shared genes between planarians and mammals that demonstrate relatedness between the two groups. Which again, is exactly what we should expect to find given that evolution is a reality.

 

[dad]

Of course it matters.

You make absolutely no sense.
You can't use this nonsense to evade the point over and over. Past state whatever nonsense doesn't make one bit of difference. It's irrelevant. Unless you want to continue to show that you have no idea what you're talking about. I suggest you do some reading on nested hierarchies to help your understanding on this matter. There are groups of shared genes between planarians and mammals that demonstrate relatedness between the two groups. Which again, is exactly what we should expect to find given that evolution is a reality.

You seem clueless to the point here. The issue is whether forces and laws impact how thing work. The answer is of course. Now you want to use our forces and laws or nature to model how the past worked..no can do..unless you prove it was the same. Period.

Nested orders of creation simply do not help you at all and if you claim they do tell us how.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem clueless to the point here. The issue is whether forces and laws impact how thing work. The answer is of course. Now you want to use our forces and laws or nature to model how the past worked..no can do..unless you prove it was the same. Period.

Nested orders of creation simply do not help you at all and if you claim they do tell us how.

We have evidence that it was the same in the past. You have no evidence of a change. Of course since you know that you are wrong you are trying to shift the burden of proof. The side with evidence wins, but you do not even know what is and what is not evidence.


Are you still afraid to learn?

 

[dad]

We have evidence that it was the same in the past.

You failed to post it for hundreds of posts. Gong!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You failed to post it for hundreds of posts. Gong!

No, you lost the right to demand evidence when you denied it. At that point you have to learn what is and what is not evidence if you want to demand any. I won't cast pearls before swine. If you do bother to learn what is and what is not evidence then I will gladly provide you with evidence. But you need to get over your fear first.

But thanks for telling us that you are wrong again.

 

[dad]

No, you lost the right to demand evidence when you denied it. At that point you have to learn what is and what is not evidence if you want to demand any. I won't cast pearls before swine. If you do bother to learn what is and what is not evidence then I will gladly provide you with evidence. But you need to get over your fear first.

But thanks for telling us that you are wrong again.

Not sure if anyone is so unfamiliar with your so am posts that they would expect evidence or honest debate from you. Sorry if that is news.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not sure if anyone is so unfamiliar with your so am posts that they would expect evidence or honest debate from you. Sorry if that is news.

dad, I will have an honest debate with any honest person. You failed that test a long time ago. Yet you run away from an idea that an average person could understand in less than half an hour. Why? Because you know that you are wrong. If you are not afraid why not try to learn?

 

[nPeace]

I don’t debate internet links. And I am not discussing whether science is the only way to get to some truths.

I am challenging your claims that science is compatible with religion. It is not. By far. There cannot be two things that are more different in both claims and methodology.

But if you now believe it does not need to be....that there are more reliable ways to go to the truth, then ok. Another debate. But if you insist that they are compatible, then you will be challenged.

Ciao

- viole

Well viole, I guess it comes down to perspective. Perhaps I need to borrow your lens, in order to see what you are seeing, because I don't. That's not going to happen though. I think your lens are blurred, and deliberately modified.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well viole, I guess it comes down to perspective. Perhaps I need to borrow your lens, in order to see what you are seeing, because I don't. That's not going to happen though. I think your lens are blurred, and deliberately modified.

One problem is that the religion you follow requires you to deny science. How many times have you falsely claimed there is no evidence for evolution?

Since this is a scientific discussion we need to use scientific standards. In the world of science evidence is clearly defined:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. "

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

That is all. Well to be honest, it is not as easy as it looks.

 

[viole]

Well viole, I guess it comes down to perspective. Perhaps I need to borrow your lens, in order to see what you are seeing, because I don't. That's not going to happen though. I think your lens are blurred, and deliberately modified.

Look, it is very simple and clear.

No sane scientist would say that life started INDEPENDENTLY thousands of times (once per kind) on this planet. There is zero evidence, papers, research etc, on that. So, if this is what your Book says, then it follows immediately that your Book and science are not compatible.

And this is only biology.

In fact, they are totally incompatible. There cannot be two things more different. Claims are completely different, methodology is completely different. It is mind boggling that anyone could see similarities.

So, your claim that they are compatible is trivially false. and the call is to choose between modern science and bronze age books, basically. You cannot believe in both without being logically incoherent.

Ciao

- viole

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can't use this nonsense to evade the point over and over

In all the years I've observed this fellow, @dad has managed to demonstrate one single thing beyond any reasonable doubt.

And that is, that he most definatly CAN use his "past nature" nonsense to evade EVERY point ANYONE puts to him about ANYTHING.

He's not using it succesfully, obviously. But your comment didn't mention any qualifiers like that. ;-)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now you want to use our forces and laws or nature to model how the past worked..no can do..unless you prove it was the same.

There's no reason to think otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You failed to post it for hundreds of posts. Gong!

Or..... it was posted over and over again and you just ignored it or failed to recognize it.

 

[nPeace]

Look, it is very simple and clear.

No sane scientist would say that life started INDEPENDENTLY thousands of times (once per kind) on this planet. There is zero evidence, papers, research etc, on that. So, if this is what your Book says, then it follows immediately that your Book and science are not compatible.

And this is only biology.

In fact, they are totally incompatible. There cannot be two things more different. Claims are completely different, methodology is completely different. It is mind boggling that anyone could see similarities.

So, your claim that they are compatible is trivially false. and the call is to choose between modern science and bronze age books, basically. You cannot believe in both without being logically incoherent.

Ciao

- viole

Apparently the only sane scientists are those who believe anything that does not conflict with the belief in the idea that all life came from LUCA.
Any scientists that says anything contrary to the beliefs surrounding that, is not a scientist.
Feel free to look through your special lens. I am not complaining. I'm just saying it as I see it.

Actually, I will wait until the news comes out when they say that there was more than one LUCA, then I will send you a special PM. I'm happy to wait.

 

[nPeace]

@Jose Fly Hey coming at ya.
We have agreed so far that natural selection is the combination of variation, heredity, and differential reproduction.
You were trying to explain how natural selection acts on variation in a population.
So to make it simple, that I can follow you, could you first explain, what exactly you mean by "variation in a population", and then explain as simple and clearly as you can, how natural selection acts on it?

 

[metis]

There are myriads of variations within a gene pool, with some that are more advantageous than others, some that are at least somewhat detrimental, and some that are neither but still perform functions that are needed. Natural selection ("survival of the fittest") tends to favor the advantageous over the detrimental, thus the gene pool evolves over time.