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.
Except you admitted (without knowing it) that they can. Except you called it adaption.
Which is why you have to lie about 'materialist dogma' all the time. Because you do not even understand your own arguments. Which is why you refuse to answer questions. Which is why you refuse to take this to the science section.
I never said random errors cause adaptation. The changes might occur for all kinds of reasons, and it is unscientific and irrational to say they are always errors.
What I said was that adaptation by natural selection has been observed, while evolution of new species by natural selection has not. I said the variations leading to adaptation might already have been present as potential, but not yet expressed. These variations are not new features.
But biologists (of all religious persuasions) know that Darwin's theory has been advanced with later works, starting with the religious Mendel. The fact that you have to misrepresent this as well is amusing, especially as you were responding to a Christian.
Mendel's genetics was thought to verify Darwin's theory. It didn't change the basic idea of random variations and natural selection.
What point? That parts of the universe fart? That parts of the universe collapses in on itself so light can not escape. That parts of the universe are born in a ball of elephant dung?
Lmao, whatever harry.
You proved the point. claiming humans are part of a less complex system or that we are the most complex thing is just flat silliness. It's as silly as the fundy's creation by some omni dude.
The simple fact is, harry, the truth is between your need to "deny everything" and the fundy theist need to push "my god only".
why does a middle ground, supported by science, worry you? whats in it for you to deny everything, no matter how reasonable?
You proved the point. claiming humans are part of a less complex system or that we are the most complex thing is just flat silliness. It's as silly as the fundy's creation by some omni dude.
The simple fact is, harry, the truth is between your need to "deny everything" and the fundy theist need to push "my god only".
why does a middle ground, supported by science, worry you? whats in it for you to deny everything, no matter how reasonable?
what gives with that?
He is only able to perceive extremes. A lot of people are like that.
OK. I suspect you will ignore this but here goes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
...and I was right.
Hey G4N! Why are you ignoring the from post 278. Omega ignored it too. Fancy that!
Still ignoring it G4N? Is it because it completely destroys your claim that Micro CANNOT lead to Macro. So come on G4N. Tell us, if Micro cannot lead to Macro as you claim, where is the definitive change from red to blue in the above coloured text.
The color of the moth under discussion is a random change, which you called errors. This is not adaption, as both light and dark examples are still produced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
The changes might occur for all kinds of reasons, and it is unscientific and irrational to say they are always errors.
Once again, no one is doing this. But perhaps you would like to present that evidence that it was a deliberate change. Otherwise it is unscientific and irrational to say without evidence that it was done by a cosmic brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
What I said was that adaptation by natural selection has been observed, while evolution of new species by natural selection has not.
We do not need a new species to see evolution by natural selection. We have plenty of other evidence, while you have STILL not provided the mechanism that stops a genome from changing too far.
But try investigating the evolution of new species by natural selection of goatsbeard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
I said the variations leading to adaptation might already have been present as potential, but not yet expressed. These variations are not new features.
Exact the dark version of the peppered moth was not known before 1811.
You proved the point. claiming humans are part of a less complex system or that we are the most complex thing is just flat silliness. It's as silly as the fundy's creation by some omni dude.
Try arguing about things I actually said instead of creating a straw man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
The simple fact is, harry, the truth is between your need to "deny everything" and the fundy theist need to push "my god only".
why does a middle ground, supported by science, worry you? whats in it for you to deny everything, no matter how reasonable?
Will this cruelty to straw men never end? Three in two post!
The Farce is strong in this one. There is acceptance of the evidence ...some of it..(I think) and somehow, not denying the adaptation, the genetics, the fossil evidence of speciation, but refusing to accept that it fits together as the best explanation, and not even having an alternative, pretty much does for her case. But we still get wriggling and nit -picking (much of it irrelevant - what does it matter what Mendel was thought to prove?) in hopes to do what? Admit to refusing to accept the evidence on Faith (in goddunnit - I think that, although it hasn't been said, nobody has any doubt that is the Belief) becasue that you shatter the basis of Faith.
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.
