Moderator: Community Team
tzor wrote:So this is what happens when I stop reading the forums ... a discussion develops?Bigbullets wrote:A lot of ignorance on both sides. I find that most people who believe in evolution, don't understand it.
My problem is that it's impossible. And you need a lot of study to come to that conclusion.
I'm going to throw a money wrench (or a wooden shoe depending on your favorite metaphor) into the discussion. I would insist that most people (on both sides) puts a lot of moral implications into their arguments which should simply not be in the discussion. There are a lot of reasons for this but the biggest assumption is that "changes" makes something better and that evolution means creatures today are "better" than there were in the past. They are not; just somewhat different. Change is certainly possible. Not better, not worse, just different. External forces generally drives the "evolution" of species or rather sub-species. Remember that the final question is not whether anything is "better" but whether it is sufficient to work at all. It's not about coming in first place; it's about managing to finish the race.
DoomYoshi wrote:Epigenetics refers to heritable information that are not related to the sequence of DNA. Basically, instead of the letters of the gene changing, the packaging of the gene changes; so the end result is that gene expression still changes. That isn't what tzor's post was about.
2dimes wrote:Picture of money wrench please.
jonesthecurl wrote:2dimes wrote:Picture of money wrench please.
Don't money this up, now.
tzor wrote:So this is what happens when I stop reading the forums ... a discussion develops?Bigbullets wrote:A lot of ignorance on both sides. I find that most people who believe in evolution, don't understand it.
My problem is that it's impossible. And you need a lot of study to come to that conclusion.
I'm going to throw a money wrench (or a wooden shoe depending on your favorite metaphor) into the discussion. I would insist that most people (on both sides) puts a lot of moral implications into their arguments which should simply not be in the discussion. There are a lot of reasons for this but the biggest assumption is that "changes" makes something better and that evolution means creatures today are "better" than there were in the past. They are not; just somewhat different. Change is certainly possible. Not better, not worse, just different. External forces generally drives the "evolution" of species or rather sub-species. Remember that the final question is not whether anything is "better" but whether it is sufficient to work at all. It's not about coming in first place; it's about managing to finish the race.
warmonger1981 wrote:Does anybody know an evolutionist standpoint on the chicken or the egg?
warmonger1981 wrote:Does anybody know an evolutionist standpoint on the chicken or the egg?
jonesthecurl wrote:warmonger1981 wrote:Does anybody know an evolutionist standpoint on the chicken or the egg?
Did you go read Gould like I suggested?
Symmetry wrote:It's not even necessarily about finishing the race.
jonesthecurl wrote:Bigbullets wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:genes can change in other ways than mutation.
Take a search for "horizontal gene transfer".
The only way 'new' information arises is through mutations. You can't have evolution without mutations.
Look it up. Cows have snake genes, humans have genes from othere species.
Again, take the time to look it up. Horizontal gene transfer.
Bigbullets wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:Bigbullets wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:genes can change in other ways than mutation.
Take a search for "horizontal gene transfer".
The only way 'new' information arises is through mutations. You can't have evolution without mutations.
Look it up. Cows have snake genes, humans have genes from othere species.
Again, take the time to look it up. Horizontal gene transfer.
And how did human's get 'snake genes'? I want specifics. Since snakes aren't in the evolutionary line of humans.
Human's and squids have the same eye. This doesn't help your cause. Because you have to believe that the same organ evolved independently in two different creature by random chance. Not only improbable, but impossible.
jonesthecurl wrote:Bigbullets wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:Bigbullets wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:genes can change in other ways than mutation.
Take a search for "horizontal gene transfer".
The only way 'new' information arises is through mutations. You can't have evolution without mutations.
Look it up. Cows have snake genes, humans have genes from othere species.
Again, take the time to look it up. Horizontal gene transfer.
And how did human's get 'snake genes'? I want specifics. Since snakes aren't in the evolutionary line of humans.
Human's and squids have the same eye. This doesn't help your cause. Because you have to believe that the same organ evolved independently in two different creature by random chance. Not only improbable, but impossible.
Cows have snake genes. I don't think humans do -though they do have genes from other species. Look it up - horizontal gene transfer. Here' I'll make it easy for you, though it would take less than a minute to search for thishttps://www.britannica.com/science/horizontal-gene-transfer
There are several cases of eyes evolving into similar forms. That's because if an eye is gonna work, there are a limited number of possibilities.
warmonger1981 wrote:can anyone explaine how the moon got here to help the evolutionary process?
tzor wrote:warmonger1981 wrote:can anyone explaine how the moon got here to help the evolutionary process?
Have you tried asking Wikipedia?
warmonger1981 wrote:can anyone explaine how the moon got here to help the evolutionary process?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
warmonger1981 wrote:doesn't pass the mustard test. too many options to choose from. so which one is correct?
tzor wrote:warmonger1981 wrote:doesn't pass the mustard test. too many options to choose from. so which one is correct?
It's like the question "Who killed MR. Boddy?" Do we really know which one is correct before we have eliminated all the other possibilities?
warmonger1981 wrote:sounds like evolution. too many options to pick from without any real evidence. does Wikipedia have a evolution page that can prove evolution without any gaps or lack of evidence? because all moon theories have major gaps. still wondering about the coincidence in moon-sun ratios in the videos I posted.im not saying I'm right just open to learning.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
warmonger1981 wrote:Does Wikipedia have a evolution page that can prove evolution without any gaps or lack of evidence?
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users