Evolutionalary theory.

[Baruch Menachem]

Cute monkeys?

 

[rdean]

Are you saying bad assumptions using defective information based on disgraced theories are a good thing?

Lots of folks say "this is science." But what they speak of is just another form of faith. Scientific socialism is still moonshine. Christian Science is still belief in weak minds over hard matter.

I really don't understand your objection, because you didn't explain it correctly.

disgraced theories?

If you are talking about "magical creation", then, for sure, you are talking about "disgraced theories".

 

[rdean]

From the time of Linneaus, evolution has been pretty much an obvious conclusion.

The Religious objection is to inevitable conclusion of that reality. If we are a critter like any other, where is the special relation we have with the creator? If you deny a postulate, then you can deny the conclusion.

And if you run with a half baked idea of what you are studying, then what of the consequences? Hitler's Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, even today in North Korea, and in Stalin's Russia, there was an open desire to cull the herd of undesirables to make for a new, better man.

It is best to leave man out of the equation for a while, as if we put man in the equation, the consequences of breeding for improvement are to horrible to contemplate.

Except when Pol Pot and Stalin and Hitler took over, the first people they killed were the educated. Yep, the best and the brightest. Hitler was the only one that talked about the "Master Race". The others just wanted a "workers utopia" or "power". Mostly power.

People that compare Obama to these people are butt munchers.

 

[Missourian]

Evolutionary theory in bunk.

It doesn't take a deep understanding of science to see the flaws.

It is easy to IMAGINE evolutionary development in higher organisms...but when you apply critical thinking skills, the theory self destructs.

Here is a simple yes or no question.

Did all higher organisms with two ears, two eyes and one mouth evolve from a single common descendant?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

That is a question that is impossible to answer. There is no record, there is no way of extrapolating an answer.

 

[Missourian]

That is a question that is impossible to answer. There is no record, there is no way of extrapolating an answer.

You could extrapolate a statistical probability.

The probability of parallel evolutionary processes producing the same result would be astronomical.

What other explanation could there be?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Evolutionary theory in bunk.

It doesn't take a deep understanding of science to see the flaws.

It is easy to IMAGINE evolutionary development in higher organisms...but when you apply critical thinking skills, the theory self destructs.

Here is a simple yes or no question.

Did all higher organisms with two ears, two eyes and one mouth evolve from a single common descendant?

I see where the pedant Baruch, avoided the question. That philistine will evolve, devolve, deceive, deflect and deconstruct, but try and get a straight answer to an intelligent question and ---poof!---he's a tooth fairy.

Is your question really as simple as you posit it, and are you as informed as you pretend to be? Here is a simple yes or no question.

higher organisms? by 'higher organisms' do you mean: CHAPTER 11: GENETIC ORGANIZATION IN HIGHER ORGANISMS

or...

are you as confused about what a higher organism is as the people you are baiting?

The evolution of complexity is an important outcome of the process of evolution. Evolution has produced some remarkably complex organisms - although the actual level of complexity is very hard to define or measure accurately in biology, with properties such as gene content, the number of cell types or morphology all being used to assess an organism's complexity.[1][2] This observation that complex organisms can be produced from simpler ones has led to the common misperception of evolution being progressive and having a direction that leads towards what are viewed as "higher organisms".[3]

Evolution of complexity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

define a shared ancestor?

In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms have common descent if they have a common ancestor. All living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[1]

Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That is a question that is impossible to answer. There is no record, there is no way of extrapolating an answer.

he didn't ask you to extrapolate an answer. It is n-o-t a question that is impossible to answer. He did not ask if a higher power actually exists.

you're a pretender

 

[JBeukema]

And another thing, to fully appreciate and understand evolution, you need higher education on the matter. It's complex and when you understand chemistry, physics, biology, genetics, ecology, etc it all fits perfectly. Most people are just ignorant of science at a higher level and can't fully appreciate it.

There are entire college course, requiring prerequisites in other basic sciences, that teach evolution. So no wonder many people don't fully understand it unless they have that science education

I never went to college and I like to think I have a reasonable grasp on the matter.

Just don't ask for the specifics of epigenetic events (or something equally technical and specialized) or I'm going to take you to the library and sit down next to you and we can look it up together.

 

[JBeukema]

Evolutionary theory in bunk.

It doesn't take a deep understanding of science to see the flaws.

It is easy to IMAGINE evolutionary development in higher organisms...but when you apply critical thinking skills, the theory self destructs.

Here is a simple yes or no question.

Did all higher organisms with two ears, two eyes and one mouth evolve from a single common descendant?

If you go back far enough

Hi, you have received -43 reputation points from Missourian.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:


Regards,
Missourian

Note: This is an automated message.

I guess (s)he didn't really want the answer

 

[JBeukema]

That is a question that is impossible to answer. There is no record, there is no way of extrapolating an answer.

You could extrapolate a statistical probability.

The probability of parallel evolutionary processes producing the same result would be astronomical.

What other explanation could there be?

Parallel evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[eagleseven]

Here is a simple yes or no question.

Did all higher organisms with two ears, two eyes and one mouth evolve from a single common descendant?

It is the most probable explanation, yes.

Do you have a better explanation as to why both humans and dogs have a near-identical set of organs?

 

[Missourian]

That is a question that is impossible to answer. There is no record, there is no way of extrapolating an answer.

You could extrapolate a statistical probability.

The probability of parallel evolutionary processes producing the same result would be astronomical.

What other explanation could there be?

Parallel evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And retrograde motion explained the motion of the planets in the geocentric universe.

Parallel evolution defies the principles laid out by evolutionary theory...RANDOM mutation perpetuated by natural selection.

For two separate animals, like the new world and old world porcupines in the examples cited by the wikipedia article you linked to, to develop the same random mutations (and it might take 10, 100, 1000 different genes to control the generation of quills) at the same time is so close to a statistical improbability that in reality it is impossible.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Evolutionary theory in bunk.

It doesn't take a deep understanding of science to see the flaws.

It is easy to IMAGINE evolutionary development in higher organisms...but when you apply critical thinking skills, the theory self destructs.

Here is a simple yes or no question.

Did all higher organisms with two ears, two eyes and one mouth evolve from a single common descendant?

dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Yes, it does take a deep understanding. Shows how much you know about evolution

 

[Dr Gregg]

That is a question that is impossible to answer. There is no record, there is no way of extrapolating an answer.

You could extrapolate a statistical probability.

The probability of parallel evolutionary processes producing the same result would be astronomical.

What other explanation could there be?

Fail at statistics. When speaking in billions of years, trillions upon trillions of chemical reactions, statistics, no matter what the probability, go out the door with that many number of events

People will the lottery, multiple times a year, with odds at 1 in 100,000,000 (actually higher). When you have millions of different numbers being picked, you increase the chance of getting that one

 

[Missourian]

Here is a simple yes or no question.

Did all higher organisms with two ears, two eyes and one mouth evolve from a single common descendant?

It is the most probable explanation, yes.

Do you have a better explanation as to why both humans and dogs have a near-identical set of organs?

Here is the anatomy of an Octopus:

Very similar right?

But the Octopus' eye developed completely separately from that of jellyfish AND humans.

"Despite the massive evolutionary gulf that separates jellyfish and vertebrates, both groups construct their eyes using similar genetic components. It's possible that they kept an ancient 'eye program' that their shared ancestor already had, but Kozmik thinks that this is unlikely. If any such program existed, it would have eventually been abandoned by many animal groups, for most sighted invertebrates, such as octopuses and insects, build their eyes with a very different set of genes. Kozmik argues that eyes provide such an important advantage that there's no obvious reason why any group of animal should abandon one working system of building them, in favor of a completely different one."

Jellyfish and human eyes assembled using similar genetic building blocks : Not Exactly Rocket Science

​

​

​

​

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Evolutionary theory in bunk.

It doesn't take a deep understanding of science to see the flaws.

It is easy to IMAGINE evolutionary development in higher organisms...but when you apply critical thinking skills, the theory self destructs.

Here is a simple yes or no question.

Did all higher organisms with two ears, two eyes and one mouth evolve from a single common descendant?

I really can't go there, as there is no record.

There are lots of differing forms of life around now. Are we related to sponges? A quick look at the welfare rolls might produce a positive answer. But the organization of them is so different that it might well be a result of parallel evolution.

I would be willing to speculate that all vertibrate animals probably came from a common ancestor. The similarity in construction is so great.

Asking me to go beyond the evidence is demanding I take on stand on two contradictory but may both wrong conconclusions.

 

[JBeukema]

And retrograde motion explained the motion of the planets in the geocentric universe.

Retrograde motion?

Retrograde Motion of Exoplanets Calls Into Question Theories About Creation of Planets | TopNews United States

Parallel evolution defies the principles laid out by evolutionary theory...RANDOM mutation perpetuated by natural selection.

Random events can't occur twice?

Flip a coin three times...

Selection is not random

 

[Missourian]

And retrograde motion explained the motion of the planets in the geocentric universe.

Retrograde motion?

Retrograde Motion of Exoplanets Calls Into Question Theories About Creation of Planets | TopNews United States

Parallel evolution defies the principles laid out by evolutionary theory...RANDOM mutation perpetuated by natural selection.

Random events can't occur twice?

Flip a coin three times...

Selection is not random

Uh...you seem to have missed the "Geocentric universe" as in Earth centered, JB...as in forcing a explanation based on a preconceived notion.

And we're not talking about a simple binary example like a coin flip as you well know.

Generate two grand prizes winning Powerball tickets randomly in the same week and you've scratched the surface proving the possibility of parallel evolution.

Just to get you started, here is some lottery math: Lottery Math

Finally, selection not being random is moot since mutation IS random and vast majority of those mutations are damaging.

"Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[4] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on cells, organisms have evolved mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations.[1]"

Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

 

[Dr Gregg]

And retrograde motion explained the motion of the planets in the geocentric universe.

Retrograde motion?

Retrograde Motion of Exoplanets Calls Into Question Theories About Creation of Planets | TopNews United States

Parallel evolution defies the principles laid out by evolutionary theory...RANDOM mutation perpetuated by natural selection.

Random events can't occur twice?

Flip a coin three times...

Selection is not random

Uh...you seem to have missed the "Geocentric universe" as in Earth centered, JB...as in forcing a explanation based on a preconceived notion.

And we're not talking about a simple binary example like a coin flip as you well know.

Generate two grand prizes winning Powerball tickets randomly in the same week and you've scratched the surface proving the possibility of parallel evolution.

Just to get you started, here is some lottery math: Lottery Math

Finally, selection not being random is moot since mutation IS random and vast majority of those mutations are damaging.

"Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[4] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on cells, organisms have evolved mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations.[1]"

Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

Doesn't matter, you only need 30% positive ones when speaking of a population of millions.