1) Most mutations are neutral.
2) The bad out number the good by only about 10 to 1.
3) What's bad in one environment can be good in another.
Evolution discussion
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
1) Most mutations are neutral.
2) The bad out number the good by only about 10 to 1.
3) What's bad in one environment can be good in another.
What's a "kind"?
Several things that contradict Darwin are mainstream science, accepted by almost all scientists. Darwin's positions hold no special status.
It is a fact that the the continents used to be joined, and a fact they are moving. Continental drift theory is the overall explanation for these (and other) facts. Theories are greater, grander, and broader-ranging than facts. Theories do not become facts.
Some times they do. All facts started somewhere in the realm of theories.
To be clear, I meant in the realm of science. Saying scientific theories become scientific facts is like saying trees become leaves. Trees have leaves, grow leaves, develop leaves. They do not become leaves.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Sure and vampires are immortal and zombies still can walk while being dead. I asked for something believable and you give me this nonsense
The Bible book of Genesis speaks of seven men who lived more than 900 years, all of them being born prior to the Flood of Noah’s day. They were Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Jared, Methuselah, and Noah. (Genesis 5:5-27; 9:29) Many of these men may be unfamiliar to most people, but all of them were among the first ten generations in human history. Methuselah is well-known for having lived the longest—a record 969 years! The Bible mentions at least another 25 individuals who also reached ages beyond what is common today. Some of them lived 300, 400, even 700 or more years. (Genesis 5:28-31; 11:10-25) The outstanding longevity of those men living prior to the Flood proves that the human body has a remarkable potential for life.
Modern technology has enabled scientists to take a closer look at the human body and its marvelous design, including its amazing capacity for regenerating and healing itself. Their conclusion? It is capable of living indefinitely. “Aging,” says Professor of Medicine Tom Kirkwood, “remains one of the great mysteries of medical science.”
Although there is no shortage of theories promising a cure for aging, most experts agree with Dr.*Gene D. Cohen, president of the Gerontological Society of America, that “all these magic bullets have turned out to be blanks.” Why? For one thing, says science writer Nancy Shute, in U.S.News & World Report, “no one yet knows what causes aging and its inevitable consequence, death. And applying a cure to the ailment when you don’t know the cause is haphazard at best.” Dr.*Gosden too states that aging remains an enigma: “It is expressed in each one of us but its underlying nature remains a mystery.” He notes that “the really big question of why it occurs at all” gets little attention.
In his book The Dream of Eternal Life, Mark Benecke notes: “Nearly all of the body is renewed several times during the course of a life. .*.*. After about seven years, we are new people in the truest sense of the word.” However, this does not go on indefinitely because cells stop multiplying after a predetermined number of divisions. If that was not the case, though, says Benecke, “the human body could regenerate itself for a very long time—even eternally.”
Awaiting your rebuttal!
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Good point! All of these theories are basically guess work.....just like what some dinosaurs actually looked like! Initially, it was thought that dinosaurs were all the same color.....gray! But just reasoning on the matter, since dinosaurs were "Reptiles" and today's reptiles come in various colors, it only stands to reason that some dinosaurs may have been very colorful! Or at the very least, not all gray!
Theories are not guesses. They are well-researched, well-tested, and productive of new ideas.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
While the word “species” is used frequently, it should be noted that this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis, which uses the much more inclusive term “kind.” Often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a “kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account.
What defines the boundary of a “kind”? The Bible does not say. However, it does state that living creatures “swarmed forth according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:21) This statement implies that there is a limit to the amount of variation that can occur within a “kind.”
The “kinds” of animals thus have reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding “according to their kinds.” It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family “kinds”—the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries according to “kind” established by our Creator were not and could not be crossed.
That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few “kinds” is proved by the endless variety of humankind—short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...so your saying that the idea that some dinosaurs had color and others did not.....can be determined by well-researched, well-tested "theories"....even though all we have are bones and NOT skin samples from eons of elapsed time? Why not just say "I'm guessing" this may have been the case!
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...or maybe the more intellectual statement "this is an educated guess!"
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Well, dinosaur skin and feather fossils have been found and analyzed for pigments, and rendering has been done on them. I'd provide a link, but you wouldn't care. You're too busy taking a book that has a woman turned to salt as fact.
MVP
Well-Known Member
Bible says God created birds before sea creatures and land before light and that God made women from the rib.
Book of Mormom says Jews sailed to America's 600 years BC
Quran says Allah holds birds in the sky and that men were molded from clay
S.Meyer book Twilight speaks of numerous vampires who live among us as immortals and that there is bunch of Quileute natives around Forks who can shift their shape into giant wolfs.
Pittacus Lore in his book I Am Number Four tells us about aliens from Mogadore on Earth. The Mogadorian soldiers, it is revealed, can shapeshift into monstrous giants.
Cassandra Clare in her book City of Glasses tells us that there is not only vampires and werewolfs but as well well shadowhunters, demons, warlocks and other supernatural creatures around us.
If you believe what any of these fictional novels say then your life must be pretty scary. I am really sorry for you.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...don't need the link, I believe you! But that doesn't prove by any stretch of the imagination that Birds came from Reptiles! Just proves they were made up of a variety of colors, all with in there "kinds!" And the Heat's "bird man" has turned himself into a pillar of tattoo's!.....so what's not to believe about turning into a pillar of salt!
MVP
Well-Known Member
So fossils of dinosaurs with feathers and with numerous similar anatomical features like birds do not prove that birds evolved from dinosaurs but some ancient book telling you that some people lived 900 years is more trustworthy to you? I think you just pick whatever you want to believe and do not give it a fair and objective assessment.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Scientism is wonderful like that. They zero in on little things and extrapolate to huge proportions.
Because the desert is flat the whole earth must be.
Because there is local warming that must mean the whole damn world is warming.
Because there are different colored moths then we all must have come from a fish.
You can't see how ridiculous you all are.
The "ladder" slip was amusing.
In all honesty, and not be to mean, but I cannot help but conclude Pearl that you don't know shiite about science or how it works.
Perhaps you ought to demonstrate a bit more humility in waxing long and loud about something you evidently don't have a clue about.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Feathers are unique to birds. Supposedly, reptilian scales just happened to become these amazing structures. Out from the shaft of a feather are rows of barbs. Each barb has many barbules, and each barbule has hundreds of barbicels and hooklets. After a microscopic examination of one pigeon feather, it was revealed that it had “several hundred thousand barbules and millions of barbicels and hooklets.”
These hooks hold all the parts of a feather together to make flat surfaces or vanes. Nothing excels the feather as an airfoil, and few substances equal it as an insulator. A bird the size of a swan has some 25,000 feathers.
If the barbs of these feathers become separated, they are combed with the beak. The beak applies pressure as the barbs pass through it, and the hooks on the barbules link together like the teeth of a zipper. Most birds have an oil gland at the base of the tail from which they take oil to condition each feather. Some birds have no oil gland but instead have special feathers that fray at their tips to produce a fine talclike dust for conditioning their feathers. And feathers usually are renewed by molting once a year.
Knowing all of this about the feather, consider this rather astonishing effort to explain its development: “How did this structural marvel evolve? It takes no great stretch of imagination to envisage a feather as a modified scale, basically like that of a reptile—a longish scale loosely attached, whose outer edges frayed and spread out until it evolved into the highly complex structure that it is today.”
But do you think such an explanation is truly scientific? Or does it read more like science fiction?
MVP
Well-Known Member
No, they are not. Dinosaurs like microraptors had feathers as well and it is well documented and proven.
You can apply same argument to any other part of the body of any other creature. PW was marveling at femur and how complex it is, I could say the same about eye, ear, *****, uterus, kidney - you name it. Every single organ is amazingly complex. That's what billions of years of evolution do.
Can you provide evidence, or even a quote, that a mushroom and a cat are of a different kind? Maybe birds and pear trees are of the same kind. So, all of evolution may have happened just as in MET, and the "kind" barrier was not broken. Perhaps there are only three kinds on all of the earth, and two are unicellular. Common sense in not an answer, because you don't think God's ways are man's ways.