Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The way you reacted to my post, equals what I feel about you guys and evolution.
Oh, I'm VERY sure you you think every.single.person who doesn't share your belief in YEC is wrong...wrong...wrong and needs to get with the program and believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. Because you've got the scoop on the creation because of your religious beliefs.
The point is, you copied and pasted something, and now gave links about it, but you gave no indication of UNDERSTANDING how a theory comes about... none. You keep mixing up terminology that if it were food would make a great paella, if asked how it was made, you would have no idea.
It's like the joke (true story) a local Indian Chief told me:
"What did the Indian say the first time he saw a pizza?"
Answer:
"Who puked on my bannock".
You have to understand what bannock is to get that joke. Just like you have to understand that a theory is and how it is different from a hypothesis.
You had not heard of this - that's why all of you reacted as you did. C'mon man...
Oh, I'm VERY sure you you think every.single.person who doesn't share your belief in YEC is wrong...wrong...wrong and needs to get with the program and believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. Because you've got the scoop on the creation because of your religious beliefs.
Uh, huh.
Again - clueless.
Because I have posted in this thread that the whole young earth/old earth discussion does not factor into one's faith in Christ.
Did you even understand the point? Did you get fixated on the big bang and lose focus? No wonder you get fooled with this stuff.
You were supposed to be looking at the role the theory played in the scenario.
The way you reacted to my post, equals what I feel about you guys and evolution.
You guys are clueless.
You are the clueless one. There is no scientific "Tunguska Theory." It is a hypothesis. Scientific THEORIES are never about single incidents of any kind. They are well developed explanatory frameworks uniting multiple observations and evidence. This alone identifies you as someone who has no clue what a scientific THEORY IS.
Another inaccurate claim by those who blindly believe the Macro Evolution claims. The DNA relationship in full, not just a small section, is widely different, about a 60%. The claim is 95% and that is only on a very small section of the DNA. Typical twist by those who believe in Evolution.
Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content
And this as can be seen is from those who believe in Evolution, but looked deeper than most into the claim about the similarity between chimps, rhesus monkeys, and humans.
You gotta read more than headlines from Pro Evolution sites.
Actually, it is NOT a twist, it is a misunderstanding by those who do not study genetics. There are OVER 90% DNA similarities between chimps, apes, and humans. The DNA is appropriated differently by the regulatory mechanisms of genes.
Quote:
Humans share over 90% of their DNA with their primate cousins. The expression or activity patterns genes differ across species in ways that help explain each species' distinct biology and behavior.
--------
up to 40% of the differences in the expression or activity patterns of genes between humans, chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys can be explained by regulatory mechanisms that determine whether and how a gene's recipe for a protein is transcribed to the RNA molecule that carries the recipe instructions to the sites in cells where proteins are manufactured.
---distinct gene expression patterns of the three species can be explained by corresponding changes in genetic and epigenetic regulatory mechanisms (my emphasis) that determine when and how a gene's DNA code is transcribed to a messenger RNA (mRNA) molecule.
--------
In all three species, Dr. Gilad's lab found that transcription factor binding and histone modifications were identical in over 67% of the regulatory elements in DNA segments that are regarded as promoter regions.
So can we agree that monkeys and chimps have a lot of the same DNA but do not receive the same instructions for use of that DNA?
It is quite similar for homosexual people.
Quote:
(H)omosexuality can run in families. Still, only 20 percent of identical twins are both gay, said Rice. Furthermore, linkage studies looking for a genetic underpinning to sexual orientation have not turned up any “major” homosexual genes, Rice noted. “This made us suspicious that something besides genes produces heritability that isn’t genetic.” Epigenetics fits the bill.
The model focuses on the role of epigenetics in shaping how cells respond to androgen signaling, an important determinant of gonad development. The researchers suggest that androgens are also important factors in molding sexual orientation, and that various genes involved in mediating androgen signaling are regulated by epigenetic modifications. These epigenetic marks, they argue, can be passed on between generations.
W. R. Rice et al., “Homosexuality as a consequence of epigenetically canalized sexual development,” The Quarterly Review of Biology, 87:343-368, 2012.
So just as being a monkey is controlled by regulatory mechanisms, so, too, can homosexuality be a natural part of developing humans.
The only way I was aware of the chimp, rhesus monkey connection was because I spent time studying the epigentic factors in homosexuality.
To me, it is a far greater miracle for God to develop virtually ALL species and their myriad differences from a one cell amoeba, than it is flat out creating a human being from dirt!!
Quote:
The domains are bacteria, bacteria-like microbes called Archaea, and eukaryotes, the group that includes plants and other multicellular species, such as humans.
The "best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis" has one species giving rise to bacteria and one giving rise to Archaea and eukaryotes, said Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts.
But, based on the new analysis, the odds of that are "just astronomically enormous," he said. "The number's so big, it's kind of silly to say it"—1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros.
Theobald also tested the creationist idea that humans arose in their current form and have no evolutionary ancestors. The statistical analysis showed that the independent origin of humans is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis," Theobald said, adding that the probability that humans were created separately from everything else is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.
So the probability that life developed from a single cell amoeba is astonishingly small at 1 in 10 to the 2680th power. But humans developing separately from all other creatures is even smaller--by more than twice that number.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 10-30-2015 at 11:24 PM..
You are the clueless one. There is no scientific "Tunguska Theory." It is a hypothesis. Scientific THEORIES are never about single incidents of any kind. They are well developed explanatory frameworks uniting multiple observations and evidence. This alone identifies you are someone who has no clue what a scientific THEORY IS.
Theories have been formulated both ways - both with and without experiments. What you say is how it should be - but in reality, people shortcut the process. Theories have been made from gathering evidence rather than an actual experiment - such as the example I gave. Doesn't necessarily make the theory valid or false - it's just a theory. Evolution is another example of this - since there are no real cases of animals or humans evolving.
You are the clueless one. There is no scientific "Tunguska Theory." It is a hypothesis. Scientific THEORIES are never about single incidents of any kind. They are well developed explanatory frameworks uniting multiple observations and evidence. This alone identifies you as someone who has no clue what a scientific THEORY IS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
Theories have been formulated both ways - both with and without experiments. What you say is how it should be - but in reality, people shortcut the process. Theories have been made from gathering evidence rather than an actual experiment - such as the example I gave. Doesn't necessarily make the theory valid or false - it's just a theory. Evolution is another example of this - since there are no real cases of animals or humans evolving.
Seriously, brother, try harder and pay closer attention. Tunguska was an event about which there are hypotheses . . . NOT a scientific THEORY. The use of theory in common parlance is misleading. The status of scientific THEORY is NOT predicated on single events and does not rely on experimentation alone. Your idea that only experimental evidence can produce a theory is false. It is the scientific method of observation and accumulation of consistent evidence across multiple disciplines and types of evidence that eventually provides sufficient support for a full-blown scientific THEORY, like evolution.
The Tunguska event is no surprise to anyone who has an interest in science.
But then, some who witnessed it, may have though it was some religious event, like a second coming or Apocalypse. And that is how myths start.
They are promulgated by superstitious, ignorant people.
You have a hard time admitting the truth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
