Timothy Spurlin
Active Member
Ahh another one who cant read
And you really have no idea what peer review entails, have you?
Did the research get peer reviewed or not? What journal was it published in?
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!
Ahh another one who cant read
And you really have no idea what peer review entails, have you?
What I find interesting is that no earlier form of "evolution," such as shrimp, apes, bears and the like feel the need to make and put on clothing. (Neither do butterflies, moths, worms, birds...etc. None of them make, put on, and wear clothing.)
Did the research get peer reviewed or not? What journal was it published in?
And another who cannot read or who does not understand.
I stated the paper was published a couple of weeks ago.
That means it has not had time for peer review
I ask questions to clarify about the research. So it's not in a journal?
I ask questions to clarify about the research. So it's not in a journal?
Ok so we agree on this point. Organisms did not evolve by a proces of random mutatios and NS (relevant mutations are not random but rather driven by environmental conditions)No, but rather, mutations brought on by environmental conditions. If there is a cause then there is nothing random about them
Are mutations truly random?
Do genetic mutations really occur at random spots along the genome, as researchers have long supposed? Maybe not, according to a study published online today (January 13) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which proposes a mechanism for how new mutations might preferentially form around existing ones
Are mutations truly random?
The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe It | Wisdom of God
Just couldn't resist talking about this. This is kind of silly.
For example...
Yet never have elements, nor molecules, nor dirt, nor rocks, nor even water made themselves form into living organisms
Evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis.
Meaning only one pair of a male and female of the kind “dog” was created, only one pair of a male and female of the kind “horse” was created, and from these parent kinds, came forth many varieties within their kinds.
Evolution isn't about a dog birthing a completely new breed. It is about a gradual change in each species. Depending on environment an external forces, some changes allow better chances for survival and just because they survive better and procreate more, that genetic trait becomes dominant in the species.
The big problem here IMO is these folks have a strawman idea idea of what evolution is and are stuck on attacking the strawman instead evolution.
Irrelevant, that is not what scientist typically mean by "random" in the context of genetics and mutations.
This what random means in this context
"the consequences of a mutation have no influence whatsoever on the probability that this mutation will or will not occur. In other words, mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful. Thus, beneficial DNA changes do not happen more often simply because an organism could benefit from them. "
Do micro-organisms have sexual intercourse?
You asked me what I was referring to. Of course it's logically possible for them to be separate but I'm saying (to return to the original point), that the evidence for common descent via the mechanism of evolution by natural selection, is way beyond reasonable doubt.
This is well established science that pretty much every scientist who studies these things agrees about, and of the tiny, tiny minority of those who don't, almost all have an obvious religious vested interest in it being wrong.
Did you read this: Genesis and the genome (pdf)?
You are mistaken.The evidence for god is as anecdotal, cannot be verified or observed
Agreed.There is no equivalence.
Evolution (like all scientific theories) leads us to expect certain objective, observable evidence and rules out us seeing other, objective and observable things.
Agree.Its evidence is intersubjectively verifiable.
I guess i did if we are in a disagreement.at least, unless you have something I've never heard of before...
Lol.. i know the difference probably much more than you doWhat objective evidence do you have for a god? You do know the difference between subjective and objective?
You are mistaken.
If you study and understand, you will discover much evidence to God.
Let me rephrase that, i think you are maybe looking for a physical evidence for god, which is not something you can find.
Think of it as saying you want to prove gravity by observing it... you cannot. you can prove gravity by observing it effect. the same goes for God.
There is plenty of evidence for its effect, you won't find God itself.
You think you are being funny or clever but...
... Anyone studying the Langkawi bent-toed gecko or Pygmy three-toed sloth, the bamboo shark. These species and many more are being studied by scientists because they are evolving rapidly
Of course there is no physical evidence, evidence is not in the mind but is physical.
Gravity can be measured, it is a physical force.
As i said, there is no evidence for god, if anyone could provide such evidence then there is a Nobel prize waiting for them, they would have the worlds religious and political leaders on their speed dial. Such evidence would be a huge thing, by its nature it would necessarily destroy faith.
No, there is no evidence but there is faith. There is faith because there is no evidence.