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.
You're a fetishist, ding. Too much time in churches had caused you to think that the truth relies on authority. It doesn't matter what i personally know or don't know, just as it doesn't matter that you are not a scientist and have no experience in any scientific field, ever. The evidence is unaffected by these things.I'm not the one being weaselly. That would be you. And you are doing so because you are trying to bluff your way through this conversation. You still are not actually saying anything. You can't because you don't know. Constrained by determinism and physical laws doesn't say jack shit. What the fuck does that even mean?Well sure, but i didn't anticipate you being so weaselly as to split your own hairs. I stand corrected on that.We actually have an idea of how it would have had to occurred.
Yes, we know it was constrained by determinism and physical laws. And we know the main elements involved and a lot about. how these elements interact.
Please tell me more about these main elements that you know a lot about. Please tell me how these elements interact. What had to have happened?
They do exist. You are wrong. Ding, you are just frustrating yourself. Find one of your fellow religious charlatans to exchange lies with. You are pissing in the wind with anyone else.If you don't know why they don't exist how can you say that?
Transitional versus ancestral[edit]
A source of confusion is the notion that a transitional form between two different taxonomic groups must be a direct ancestor of one or both groups. The difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that one of the goals of evolutionary taxonomy is to identify taxa that were ancestors of other taxa. However, because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process producing a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. Transitional fossil - Wikipedia
You can't tell me more about these main elements that you supposedly know a lot about or tell me how these elements interact or tell me what had to have happened because you don't know.You're a fetishist, ding. Too much time in churches had caused you to think that the truth relies on authority. It doesn't matter what i personally know or don't know, just as it doesn't matter that you are not a scientist and have no experience in any scientific field, ever. The evidence is unaffected by these things.I'm not the one being weaselly. That would be you. And you are doing so because you are trying to bluff your way through this conversation. You still are not actually saying anything. You can't because you don't know. Constrained by determinism and physical laws doesn't say jack shit. What the fuck does that even mean?Well sure, but i didn't anticipate you being so weaselly as to split your own hairs. I stand corrected on that.We actually have an idea of how it would have had to occurred.
Yes, we know it was constrained by determinism and physical laws. And we know the main elements involved and a lot about. how these elements interact.
Please tell me more about these main elements that you know a lot about. Please tell me how these elements interact. What had to have happened?
I said what i said. It was enough to get you attached to my ankles. So apparently i said something of import.
Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on
No, we don't have all the answers, but we're still looking. We'll never have all the answers as they just generate new questions. Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth Mike McRae - 4 Mar 2018 - sciencealert.com Scientists...www.usmessageboard.com
False. You don't even understand the material you presented.The fossil record could be complete and they should still never expect to see the transition.
You can't tell me more about these main elements that you supposedly know a lot about or tell me how these elements interact or tell me what had to have happened because you don't know.
So you would expect to see them? Why?False. You don't even understand the material you presented.The fossil record could be complete and they should still never expect to see the transition.
Actually, it was always the point of this discussion. You are textbook example of a fanatic. Arguing for things in which you have no understanding of.You can't tell me more about these main elements that you supposedly know a lot about or tell me how these elements interact or tell me what had to have happened because you don't know.
Whether i could or couldn't has no bearing on anything. You always end up in this same downward spiral.
Your ID’iot creationer nonsense about mutations is right out of the Henry Morris Academy for the Slow. It is nothing more than the silly ID’iot creationer “what are the odds”, slogans.ID’iot creationers often get confused with terms of science due to their lack of training in the subject matter. Using terms you don't understand does nothing to support ID'iot / creationism.
There is the FACT that species change. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. ID’iot creationers admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept "macroevolution", because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation.
You repeat yourself again, and the metaphysical circularity of your argument and the ad hominem of your argument are noted, just as your failure to directly address and refute my argument:
The essence of evodelusion is that all of biological history is a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry by natural means. That notion is scientifically unobservable and is predicated on the metaphysical apriority of naturalism. Further, the observable evidence does not falsify the potentiality that all of biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.While adaptive radiation and the mechanisms thereof are observable, we do and cannot observe a “transmutationally” branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry, and the apriority on which this notion is predicated is scientifically unfalsifiable. I hold that the mechanisms of adaptive radiation cannot affect the transformation of a species into an entirely different species beyond the taxonomic level of family, and no such thing above that level has ever been observed, let alone accounted for in terms of information.The mutations required to affect the kind of change and variation among species we see today from a unicellular organism would involve incalculably extraordinary additions of new information, and that information would have to be present at the very beginning of any significant transmorphic development. Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are eventually removed from environmentally separated populations, and the differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.
If the fossil record is complete? Of course. But even that teem is not well defined. The borders between species are not well defined and follow many different criteria. One is time: chronospecies, by which the borders are time markers, chosen for convenience. .So you would expect to see them?
To you, because you are a fetishist. Every discussion with you ends up with you trying to talk about credentials or what someone knows about something, instead of the material itself. How boring.Actually, it was always the point of this discussion
That assumes slight changes from generation to generation. That's not how evolution works. So even if the fossil record were complete you shouldn't expect to be able to see the transition because there wasn't one.If the fossil record is complete? Of course. But even that teem is not well defined. The borders between species are not well defined and follow many different criteria. One is time: chronospecies, by which the borders are time markers, chosen for convenience. .So you would expect to see them?
That's pretty funny coming from an ax grinder like you. Be that as it may, you have shown your inability to discuss anything related to your beliefs. You take it on faith because you are a religious fanatic.To you, because you are a fetishist. Every discussion with you ends up with you trying to talk about credentials or what someone knows about something, instead of the material itself. How boring.Actually, it was always the point of this discussion
No it doesn't. It assumes we don't know the rate of change at all times. And yes, evolution can sometimes work that way, though it doesn't have to mean a slight change in EVERY generation.That assumes slight changes from generation to generation. That's not how evolution works
If it is as you say that all transitions would be seen if the fossil record was complete precludes mutations which are dramatic and had no transition.No it doesn't. It assumes we don't know the rate of change at all times. And yes, evolution can sometimes work that way, though it doesn't have to mean a slight change in EVERY generation.That assumes slight changes from generation to generation. That's not how evolution works
But yet again, we happen upon a topic where you claim what the scientists say and do is false and stupid. Have you published your research paper?
No. I believe what modern scientists say: that evolution can and does happen at all speeds.If it is as you say that all transitions would be seen if the fossil record was complete precludes mutations which are dramatic and had no transition.
Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on
No, we don't have all the answers, but we're still looking. We'll never have all the answers as they just generate new questions. Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth Mike McRae - 4 Mar 2018 - sciencealert.com Scientists...
Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism
Abiogenesis is NOT biochemical engineering! Not even close.
Where did the preexisting strands of amyloid protein structures come from? Where did the preexisting and even more complex organic molecules, which produced them in the first place, come from? Also, please name the preexisting and even more complex organic molecules that produced them.
Answer the question, then drop and give me 50! Thanks.
Still winning!
