Crosswords5 mins ago
Creation / Evolution.
400 Answers
What can you say that you know one thing about evolution?
Answers
Quite aside from anything else, you are still setting far too much store by the people who are speaking, and far too little by what they are actually saying. Evaluate the evidence for yourself, if you can -- what one PhD says, or a Professor, or even a Nobel Laureate or two, means nothing. They may be right or they may be wrong, but who they are is irrelevant to that....
15:20 Thu 06th Feb 2020
Khandro //Are you suggesting that the inescapable force underlying nature is a matter of blindly stumbling about & evolving through a chain of accidents?//
No, definitely not blindly stumbling through accidents. The genetic accidents are assessed by the circumstances as being negative, positive or neutral. Those with negative outcomes do less well than the other and are passed on to less offspring if at all. The positive ones do better.
In many cases the development of new features starts through a duplication of an existing gene. This might have no initial effect on the organism but makes a gene available to mutate into the basis of a new feature without losing the original function.
No, definitely not blindly stumbling through accidents. The genetic accidents are assessed by the circumstances as being negative, positive or neutral. Those with negative outcomes do less well than the other and are passed on to less offspring if at all. The positive ones do better.
In many cases the development of new features starts through a duplication of an existing gene. This might have no initial effect on the organism but makes a gene available to mutate into the basis of a new feature without losing the original function.
Khandro //Do you believe that there was this creature covered in scales, which one day gave birth to an offspring whose scales were a bit odd - starting to look like they might be described as 'proto-feathers'//
The initial change was probably barely noticeable. It may have altered the internal structure of the scale. The genetic change could have spread slowly through the population because it did no harm. But its opportunity for further changes increased by the number carrying it.
Mating that produced offspring with copies of the gene from both parents would have more noticeable expression of the feature which may have given them a slight advantage, even if it was just that mates like the look of it.
With two copies of the novel gene opportunities for the mutation to develop further or produce more copies doubled. This small change may have happened of tens of thousands of years.
Eventually those with fluffy scales didn't even look attractive to those with flat scales and vice versa. They separated into two species each continuing to develop on their own evolutionary path.
The initial change was probably barely noticeable. It may have altered the internal structure of the scale. The genetic change could have spread slowly through the population because it did no harm. But its opportunity for further changes increased by the number carrying it.
Mating that produced offspring with copies of the gene from both parents would have more noticeable expression of the feature which may have given them a slight advantage, even if it was just that mates like the look of it.
With two copies of the novel gene opportunities for the mutation to develop further or produce more copies doubled. This small change may have happened of tens of thousands of years.
Eventually those with fluffy scales didn't even look attractive to those with flat scales and vice versa. They separated into two species each continuing to develop on their own evolutionary path.
Theland //Could have - might have - probably - was thought to - and so the science goes on.//
Of course you will ignore the post where I stated that the same genes ARE responsible for both feathers and scales. No "maybes" or "could haves" there.
Meanwhile you accept claims in the Bible that have absolutely zero evidence to support them, many that have already been proven to be completely wrong.
You are unconviced by the science because you are completely enthralled by a book of nonsense written by ancients who claimed to have been told by God.
If the scientists claimed they got their information from God, would you accept that?
Of course you will ignore the post where I stated that the same genes ARE responsible for both feathers and scales. No "maybes" or "could haves" there.
Meanwhile you accept claims in the Bible that have absolutely zero evidence to support them, many that have already been proven to be completely wrong.
You are unconviced by the science because you are completely enthralled by a book of nonsense written by ancients who claimed to have been told by God.
If the scientists claimed they got their information from God, would you accept that?
Theland, //Naomi - Billions of people around the world would disagree with you.
Are you you sure you are not missing something? //
Billions of people around the world would disagree with you, Theland - and you too Khandro - including most of the people here. Are you sure you're not missing something - other than logic, that is?
You've avoided answering my question, Theland - again.
Are you you sure you are not missing something? //
Billions of people around the world would disagree with you, Theland - and you too Khandro - including most of the people here. Are you sure you're not missing something - other than logic, that is?
You've avoided answering my question, Theland - again.
And mine, theland. I thought patience was supposed to be a virtue, but you have just not responded to me at all.
You have no reason to believe as you do, and no amount of videos will give you the definitive proof either way. You seem to have decided what you prefer to believe, which is fine if it suits you, but clearly doesn't actually make sense. So it is impossible for you to explain, hence the diversion of videos and other questions. I suspect, you know as well as I do, that it makes no sense. But if you wish to believe it anyway, carry on, you don't need our endorsement.
You have no reason to believe as you do, and no amount of videos will give you the definitive proof either way. You seem to have decided what you prefer to believe, which is fine if it suits you, but clearly doesn't actually make sense. So it is impossible for you to explain, hence the diversion of videos and other questions. I suspect, you know as well as I do, that it makes no sense. But if you wish to believe it anyway, carry on, you don't need our endorsement.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Music11 mins ago
Crosswords41 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles53 mins ago
