Real or just to thinking9136
 Collector
|
etapi65 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GanaSoth It is about adaptation that leads to genetic change allowing you to survive better in your habitat. It's not about "gaining" or "losing" something; it's about being better suited to your habitat. For instance, if you're a bird that feeds on tree bark and you slowly evolve to be more suited to feeding on insects, your beak will shrink. What about a bird that used to fly, but is now aquatic (or semi-aquatic), the bone structure will alter; that could be caused by loss of a bone or series of bones. You don't know what you're talking about. Your description using a person whose arm falls off is nonsensical. Losing an arm would not make you better adapted to your environment. However, if you look at this in nature, organisms with this ability can grow back the lost limb. That's the evolution part, regeneration. Typically, short evolution is still based on generations and it observed on the level of 1000 generations. For microbes, the time component of this may be in days. For multi-cellular organisms it could be as short as years (though usually more decadal scale). Experiements on mutli-cellular organisms have shown speciation in the decades. For K-selected species it's 10s of thousands of years. Again, I think you're conflating the definition of evolution, adaptation, natural selection and speciation. These terms are not interchangeable. |
||
| Post 326 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by MarximusEverything you said was perfectly stated and yet in spite of it all we do have fossil evidence for changes in species...beginning species, more derived and more derived and end result species in many forms. It is miraculous how much proof has been preserved given the exact argument you just made...but you are also correct, we do not require fossils to prove evolution...every animal living around us does that adequately . Cats, fish, dogs, everything.... |
||
| Post 327 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by etapi65 Yes, and? I have agreed with that my entire life. It's the Evolution definition I do not agree with. Never has humankind witnessed an evolutionary change; one animal species into another. Quote: Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town Do show us this evidence. |
||
| Post 328 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
| nope | ||
| Post 329 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town Praise the Lord! Peace be with you and may you find your way. I love you, remember that. |
||
| Post 330 • IP flag post | ||
 Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock
|
Tedsaid private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by X51 That's ... not what the article is saying. It says that junk DNA has a *physical* use. It gives the cell the ability to form a complete nucleus, by helping the chromosomes to bundle correctly inside the cell. And it makes perfect sense, right? If junk DNA is useful on large scales, for rapid evolution when needed, then we should want to keep it around. But there has to be a mechanism to keep it around, a use for it. Otherwise, it will go away on shorter time scales and not be there when we need it. But here is a use for it! A physical use that has nothing to do with the sequences that are encoded, nothing to do with the actual instruction set represented. But enough to keep those sequences around! It's actually quite cool. Thanks for pointing this out to me. |
||
| Post 331 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
etapi65 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GanaSoth...but that's the definition of evolution. So you're saying you agree with evolution, but you don't agree with evolution. You then state, again, the this has not been witnessed. I've already provided you with multiple sources so you do not have to take my word on it. You don't have to read them, but you can't keep stating something as fact that has already been responded to with references to evidence. I mean, I guess you can, but that's the literal definition of trolling. |
||
| Post 332 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
CatCovers private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GanaSoth Full credit where it's due. It took 300+ posts, but you've got something here that's factually, verifiably correct. |
||
| Post 333 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by etapi65 No. I'm saying I agree with micro-evolution. Meaning adaptations or change's "within" a species. (Key word within.) Not macro-evolution. Totally disagree. Meaning a major evolutionary change of whole taxonomic groups over a long period of time. I'm not the one mixing up the words here. If I wasnt too clear I apologize. |
||
| Post 334 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
etapi65 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GanaSothAnd I repeat, among biologists, these describe identical processes, which the only real difference is time. They're part of the same continuum. So you're saying you believe that genes can change, but that these genes cannot change to the point you now have two, distinct organisms incapable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring? That's the equivalent of saying you believe in pens, but don't believe in writing. Or maybe you believe in writing, but not reading. The tool or process exists, but the endpoint does not? |
||
| Post 335 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by etapi65 No sorry they are not the same. Keywords or phrases are "within a species." not the "all life from a common ancestor." One is true one is not. I believe they're changes in species all the time (adaptations) but they will stay that species, not turn into another species. A chicken is still a chicken, reguardless if they have different variations of chickens giving birth to other chickens. They might have adapted different beaks (like the finches) but in the end, they will still be a chicken (same species). |
||
| Post 336 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
etapi65 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| And I've already responded to, and addressed this. Continuing to repeat your misinformation doesn't make it more true. In the field of biology, these are NOT differentiated. Your idea that somehow scientists are altering the definition of words to suit their needs is laughable...they created the terms in the first place and understand their meaning, intended meaning, and how they relate to other terms in the field. | ||
| Post 337 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by etapi65 No they aren't. One's observable in nature the other is myth based on faith. Quote: Originally Posted by etapi65 That's your opinion. We all have them. Quote: Originally Posted by etapi65 No. Both have two totally difference meanings/definitions. |
||
| Post 338 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
etapi65 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Discussing the continuum, but that micro does not actually account for all macro https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x Talking about the links through adaptive landscapes...since they're a continuum https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-0585-2_2 Issues created by the fact that there are multiple paths of researching evolution, essentially part of the framework by which we consider these part of a continuum. In particular, after reading the introduction for proper context, focus on the two speciation sections and the discussion on how vertical vs. horizontal evolution leads to the seeming discrepancy between micro-and macro evolution. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2408147.pdf These are NOT the only published articles on the topic. There are thousands. This is largely settled in the scientific community that issues arising from these two terms based on a specific field of study are easily bridged. You'll note one of the keystone papers (the last I linked) is from 1982. This is not my opinion. As I've already stated, this is how it's viewed in science. You're making extrapolations based on how you, personally view dictionary based (and might I add antiquated) definitions of words. It's the equivalent of saying the term "wicked" only means evil. When it has evolved (particularly around the great Boston region) to also mean cool, awesome, extraordinary, and as an adjective replacement for "very". So for the third time. This has been addressed; you're using opinion and personal belief and applying it to defined terms. Or to give another example you're saying the equivalent of "Hey footwear makers, from now on I'm going to use the word "boot" for what all of you incorrectly call "sandals" because I believe it to be, in fact, a boot. You're all wrong." See, no one would do that. |
||
| Post 339 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @etapi65 it only takes one word to change a meaning. | ||
| Post 340 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
MR_SigS private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town I hate to think how many brilliant minds were stifled in the past when religion had a firm grip on society- Like Ferraris made for a 5 mph world. |
||
| Post 341 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
X51 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town Let me preface my response by clarifying that I do not endorse many of the church views on evolution (or the lack of it) and I have at least on one occasion walked out of a sermon that I felt was hogwash. My statement was not meant to endorse or negate anyone's personal beliefs. I was merely conveying my observations after reading decades of science articles. I subscribe to the RSS feed at sciencedaily.com and skim through hundreds of science articles per week. While there are countless articles that I feel are conflicting, this one in particular stands out from a decade ago. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091031002314.htm We've had announcements of new species relating to humans only to get a completely different counter-opinion two months. The inconsistencies I observed were widespread. I understand that there is a lot of very well educated science backing paleontology, but the scientific community is not on the same page. For that reason, I find there to be a lot of unreliable data spread. To be honest, over the past 5 years, I have so little confidence in paleontologists that I now delete 95% of the articles I receive (about it) in my email without reading them. One of the most interesting theories to me was presented by Neal Adams. He believes that continental drift interfered with with the migratory routes of dinosaurs and that led to their extinction. Of course I'm a quack for repeating anything Neal says  about science, it was an still interesting concept for me to ponder. |
||
| Post 342 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Buzbe private msg quote post Address this user | |
| hi Again, it is I the one that start this stuffes, yes i do mean stuffes; but just a few notes the egg and the chicken are one and the same until the chicken sheds the egg for new skin. Next evaluation is true definition requires someone to be present to observe the changes. other wise all points are note of facts and guess as to how it happen, hints the phrase '...to out best understanding' or 'I or We propose that this is our best guess the .... of evolution'. As for those who wish to speak about what god said, well i have not heard him say a thing, but the bible has accounts of people having conversation with god all the time, but i want the bible readers need to read a little more carefully or in some case read for your self because there is a disclaimer in the bible that everything done buy mans hand is tainted. ? who printed the bible you are reading from or talking about? Now my exception to this thought is, if you have seen god for your self, cool cause that is between you and god. but as rule for the best life 1. be patient with other listen and understand there point of view without losing your own. 2. live life for your self and enjoy it aka have a life and make it work living, not just one wild day in 100-years of other living like a tree. 3. finds out what love mean and understand what it means to truly love and be loved. Care amd respect all around you -- simple love everyone, if for nothing that they are alive. Now this is not to say that you can not learn thing to help you live from the bible but you can also learn what not to do , the bible is a history book overall things. I am not saying there is not a God but stop lying about what god said and you have never met the person, deity. |
||
| Post 343 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Buzbe private msg quote post Address this user | |
| if you did not see if for your self or can prove it don't tell people about it like you have prooth. | ||
| Post 344 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
X51 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GanaSoth We define what a species is. Nature doesn't categorize itself in this manner. Toss the word "species" out of the discussion. It's irrelevant in my opinion. Mankind has witnessed birds drastically change characteristics during extended droughts. There is an island with an abundance of albino snakes because because birds can't see them on the beach and pick off the normal black ones. There are areas where no long stem dandelions exist because of mowing. The short stemmed ones are doing quite well. These are evolution in process. I do not think of God as some ethereal and external entity living around us. I think of God as being inside of everything. I think of God as being the forces that hold everything together at a subatomic level. My dad used to ramble "where does the intelligence start?". My answer is "At the subatomic level." |
||
| Post 345 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
X51 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Tedsaid My issue is with the word "junk". We don't know what it does, but it's likely not junk. There are many articles with scientists discovering that the junk is not junk. If only the internet was used as it was intended to link scientific research facilities for information sharing instead of posting youtube cat videos. |
||
| Post 346 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
CatCovers private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I think the preferred term now is “non-replicative DNA.” | ||
| Post 347 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
X51 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Buzbe I have had countless prayers answered. Some quite specific. I spoke nothing verbal, but my thoughts were read. I have also heard a voice... telling me things I did not know to be true... but they were later proved to be true. It would actually be harder for me to not believe at this point. I had a voice telling me to go by a friend's house. When I got there, my friend and his wife weren't there but the woman's sister was there. She was stranded without transportation and found out her dad was in the emergency room at the hospital. She told me that I was the answer to her prayer. I told her I couldn't take credit. That voice told me to stop by. I drove her to the hospital. The thing that baffles me is that the same person who scrutinizes the Bible with a magnifying glass and tweezers, will walk into a room and sit in some chair he's never seen before. He has no idea if that chair is structurally sound and can support his weight, but he has more faith in it than 10,000 people who can give personal testimony to their own faith. |
||
| Post 348 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Buzbe private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Well one persons junk keep another persons living heathy | ||
| Post 349 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Buzbe private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Just because we don’t understand it, we can not label it junk. Example a lobster was considered trash fish in the early 1900 but today it one the most expensive meals world wide | ||
| Post 350 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by X51Neal Adams could be quite correct actually Hard to satisfy the burden if evidence required with the hypothesis. My thought reading your post is that you are conflating multiple disciplines as paleontology. The quibbling about past man is constant as you suggested but that is archaeology not paleontology so I agree that discipline shows massive infighting ..the fighting I see in paleontology is mostly attributable to the extremely difficult nature of the work. Imagine trying to solve a murder where all the witnesses are dead as is everyone that ever knew them. All the evidence and the crime scene itself have been left outside in the rain for anywhere from 300- 65 million years. There are bound to be some conflicting translations and just as a courtroom does...it requires time and alot of viewpoints to build a solid consensus that meets all evidence and passes all challenges Even then you are going to have the fringers who endlessly argue conflating all evidence to meet their own agenda. For instance the bandit's...(BIRDS ARE NOT DINOSAURS ) I also admire anyone who subscribes to regular science articles and attempts to stay up on the facts!!our world needs more like you in this regard Sir |
||
| Post 351 • IP flag post | ||
|
Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock
|
Tedsaid private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GanaSoth No, *science.* Not based on faith, based on science. You are the one who is talking about literal myths that you believe based on your faith. That's the definition of any religion, actually. Christian faith isn't evidence-based ... it's not reliant on proof. You just accept it, because (circular reasoning alert) the bible tells you to. Oh, wait! You meant "myth" in a derogatory way, didn't you? Like you previously accused Darkseid of doing to you? No, "myth" doesn't mean that. It's just a way to describe a story, like a creation story. It's not derogatory. It's just a word. Unless you don't know what it means and you have a penchant for jumping to conclusions and you think any contradiction is a personal attack. If that's the case then, yeah, calling religion a "mythos" would probably be insulting. |
||
| Post 352 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
MR_SigS private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Buzbe Prooth is in the pucking. |
||
| Post 353 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
X51 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town Paleontology is indeed a complicated mystery. The problem I have with it is that assertions are made and presented as fact when they are still working theories. Did an asteroid really kill all of the dinosaurs? They still don't know. Watch any educational show directed at kids and it's touted as fact. |
||
| Post 354 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by MR_SigSso much this to the infinty. Religious supression of man's knowledge has been disastrous. Hence the entire period known as ...The Dark Age |
||
| Post 355 • IP flag post | ||
Thread locked. No more posts permitted. Return home.