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!
I’m guessing you forgot the natural selection. It’s a rather crucial component of evolution so you would do well to include it in the simulation.I have been running an evolution model in Linux for a few months now, the program looks for altered code and anomalies and encourages them in a virtual environment.
Sad thing is it has yet to find a string of code that is useful of beneficial in propagating itself.
My years of educating creationists.And in your experiential knowledge is?
I prefer to use lectures that don’t refer to creationism. When you teach geography you don’t refer to flat earth, when you teach physics you don’t refer to magic etc.Speaking of Ken Miller here is a lecture of his. It is over about an hour but if you start at about min 54 you will get a compelling proof for ToE. A prediction made, verified, and one that could not happen if ID was true.
Unless you belong to the Steve Martin School of Theology.:sarcastic
Speaking of Ken Miller here is a lecture of his. It is over about an hour but if you start at about min 54 you will get a compelling proof for ToE. A prediction made, verified, and one that could not happen if ID was true.
Unless you belong to the Steve Martin School of Theology.:sarcastic
And in your experiential knowledge is?
My years of educating creationists.
In very rare cases (at lest among animals) it can prove to be beneficial but usually its non-adaptive. In plants, this is one of the most common ways new species develop. Modern wheat for example is hexaploid (having six sets of chromosomes). The important thing is the whole set of chromosomes are copied.I meant like down syndrome, if genetic/chromosomal mutation is a normal form of evolution, why are they looking for a cure.
Maybe it's natures way of weeding out the weak, or creating a new form of life.
We simply provide stronger and more direct selective pressure.And to me there is a HUGE difference between man mad genetics and natural.
And in your experiential knowledge is?
Guilt by association then.My years of educating creationists.
I already knew the answer. Themadhair had only joined in March '09 and had no direct evidence to deal with. Case closed.I'm going to nominate this response for the "Top 10 Plays of the Day".
You know, Sandy, lawyers always say that you shouldn't ask a question unless you already know the answer. Sound advice that would have served you well in this instance.
You know very well I was referring to teaching the subject you sarky git."I prefer to use lectures that don’t refer to creationism. When you teach geography you don’t refer to flat earth, when you teach physics you don’t refer to magic etc."
Since the point of the lecture was to explain how and why they won the Dover trial it is a difficult see how the subject of ID could be avoided.
But I guess you know better. Perhaps you should volunteer to do his lectures for him.
I already knew the answer. Themadhair had only joined in March '09 and had no direct evidence to deal with. Case closed.
I was saying that if you want to teach someone evolutionary theory you should reference creationism at all. You don’t refer to magic when teaching physics for example.”OmarKhayyam” said:Speaking of Ken Miller here is a lecture of his. It is over about an hour but if you start at about min 54 you will get a compelling proof for ToE.
I think schools SHOULD teach religion. Provided that churches devote one hour each Sunday to teach calculus.I was saying that if you want to teach someone evolutionary theory you should reference creationism at all. You dont refer to magic when teaching physics for example.
Millers talk is great for folks who are interested in the creation/evolution debacle, but isnt so good if they are interested in learning science. IIRC the lecture was supposed to be a debate between Miller and someone who pulled out which is why it became a lecture on the ID trial.
It is an interesting and informative talk, but teaching science in a manner that makes the student refer to not creationism doesnt give them the best grounding in the subject.
I apologise for my earlier comment. Reading too much into the context I guess.
Guilt by association. Case dismissed. Don't make me hold you in contempt.Gee, let me think ...
Is it possible that madhair might have educated a few creationists before he joined this site? Is it possible that madhair knows people that you don't?
Case open.
Guilt by association. Case dismissed. Don't make me hold you in contempt.
You're in contempt. You've forgotten the original accusation. Fifty dollars please.Judge has to recuse herself. Case reinstated.
Don't make me revisit Operation Greylord.
Well, as far as my understanding goes, basic building blocks are still necessary to life. For instance, amino acids.
As for other things, if something (even a single-celled organism) is thriving as it is, then it doesn't need to evolve, does it? Viruses and bacteria don't necessarily need to evolve into another life form, because they're fine the way they are. Although they do evolve to become more resistant to drugs, or to become infectious to new species.
With regression....why? What benefit would there be? Evolution is about benefiting whatever species you're talking about by slow changes over generations. If there is no benefit, then it shouldn't be taking place.
Why can't we force it to happen? Well, I would guess that it's simply because we don't know how yet.
If Evolution Were True
Then things would be much as they are now. Hmm... Exactly as they are now.... But that would mean... That it is true. Ahh.
Cleared that up.