- Sep 12, 2008
- 14,201
- 3,567
- 185
- Thread starter
- #21
Cute monkeys?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
That is a question that is impossible to answer. There is no record, there is no way of extrapolating an answer.
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.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?
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
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
That is a question that is impossible to answer. There is no record, there is no way of extrapolating an answer.
I never went to college and I like to think I have a reasonable grasp on the matter.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
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?
Missourian said:Hi, you have received -43 reputation points from Missourian.
Reputation was given for this post.
Comment:
Regards,
Missourian
Note: This is an automated message.
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?
It is the most probable explanation, yes.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?
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
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?
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?
It is the most probable explanation, yes.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?
Do you have a better explanation as to why both humans and dogs have a near-identical set of organs?
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?
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.
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
Random events can't occur twice?Parallel evolution defies the principles laid out by evolutionary theory...RANDOM mutation perpetuated by natural selection.
Flip a coin three times...
Selection is not random
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
Random events can't occur twice?Parallel evolution defies the principles laid out by evolutionary theory...RANDOM mutation perpetuated by natural selection.
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]"