The following arcticle has implications for claims of past human evolution as well as for claims of future evolution.
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm
here's a question for all you who have been studying evoluition much longer than me.
i have read in a few places that man has all but stopped evolving.
is this what is really being taught by science and why?
The following arcticle has implications for claims of past human evolution as well as for claims of future evolution.
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm
hey gang!
i apologize for my absence of a few weeks.
i have been very busy with work lately, and i hate to write something that i haven't been able to research properly, so i haven't posted anything in this series for three weeks now.
I realize that some creationists accept so-called "microevolution," although I find the distinction to be absurd. I don't think the creationist explanations are convincing in any normal definition of the word.
Virtually all creationists accept variation within a kind. I believe (though I may be mistaken) that it was the evolutionists who coined the term "micro-evolution." Anyway, the idea that macro-evolution is merely the exrapolation of observed micro-evolutionary processes is questioned even among evolutionists. (most so-called micro-evolution involves the recombining of existing genetic information within a basic kind).
"The changes within a population have been termed microevolution, and they can indeed be accepted as a consequence of shifting gene frequencies. Changes above the species level-involving the origin of new species and the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns- are known as macroevolution. The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Lewin, Roger [biochemist, former editor of New Scientist and science writer], "Evolutionary- Theory Under Fire: An historic conference in Chicago challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis," Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, pp.883-887, p.883). http://members.iinet.net/~sejones/evolut04.html#evltnmcrvltncnntbxtrpltdfrmmcrvltn
kansas is holding a debate to decide.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/education/05/02/life.evolution.reut/index.html.
topeka, kansas (reuters) -- evolution is going on trial in kansas.. eighty years after a famed courtroom battle in tennessee pitted religious beliefs about the origins of life against the theories of british scientist charles darwin, kansas is holding its own hearings on what school children should be taught about how life on earth began.. the kansas board of education has scheduled six days of courtroom-style hearings to begin thursday in topeka.
hey gang!
i apologize for my absence of a few weeks.
i have been very busy with work lately, and i hate to write something that i haven't been able to research properly, so i haven't posted anything in this series for three weeks now.
i think you should try reading some real science instead of what is widely regarded by scientists as psuedo-science.
Your comment implies that I am ignorant of evolution- please substantiate your assertion. Or, do you merely believe that the non-acceptance of molecules to man evolution, in itself is evidence of ignorance about what evolution teaches?
hey gang!
i apologize for my absence of a few weeks.
i have been very busy with work lately, and i hate to write something that i haven't been able to research properly, so i haven't posted anything in this series for three weeks now.
From a creationist point of view, if I may be so bold, it is impossible to explain in a convincing manner. Even if we say that God created 200 species just for this particular lake, what happened during the flood? Remember "the waters covered the highest mountain." So these fish were no longer confined to their lake. They swam around uninhibited for a year, and then somehow all ended back back in the same lake? Definitely hard to swallow.
I'm sorry, but I believe that you are ignorant about what most creationist scientists actually believe and teach on subjects such as this. Creationists generally do not believe that God "created 200 species" of these particular fish and that somehow after the flood that they "all ended up back back in the same lake". I think that you should spend some more time studying the actual creationist positions on these things.
im on a research kick these days.
right now im trying to find info on who put the bible as we know it today together.
why some books were included and some were not.
hello, my name is brian jackson.
i am a seventh-day adventist and i am doing a bible project for my 11th grade religion class and i chose the topic of the trinity and decided to compare that of the seventh-day adventist teachings with that of your teachings.. what do you believe about the trinity?.
also, a little off the topic, but why don't you believe in having an american flag in your sanctuary?.
check out the article entitled "brave new schools.
darwin-only challenger libel.
parent says 'evolution spokeswoman' trying to discredit effort" at.
this is the second installment in my new series on short, understandable, powerful evidences for evolution.
the first installment is here:.
installment 1: endogenous retroviral sequences.
Michael Denton wrote:A response to Denton's work can be viewed here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/denton.html"One of the most remarkable features of these new biochemical discoveries is undoubtedly the way in which the pattern of molecular diversity seem to correspond to the predictions of typology." Evolution: A Theory in Crisis page 290.*
The same arcticle also appears on talkorigins. I have seen it before and I think that there may be problems contained on the cyctochrome c discussion. I hope to post some info on this.
this is the second installment in my new series on short, understandable, powerful evidences for evolution.
the first installment is here:.
installment 1: endogenous retroviral sequences.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#protein_redundancy
In terms of a scientific statistical analysis, the "null hypothesis" is that the identity of non-essential amino acids in the cytochrome c proteins from human and chimpanzee should be random with respect to one another. However, from the theory of common descent and our standard phylogenetic tree we know that humans and chimpanzees are quite closely related. We therefore predict, in spite of the odds, that human and chimpanzee cytochrome c sequences should be much more similar than, say, human and yeast cytochrome c - simply due to inheritance.
Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10 -93 (1 out of 10 93 ). Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 10 -29 . The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this probability is less than 10 -25 .
The talk origins arcticle uses negative evidence (mathematical calculations) against one naturalistic hypothesis (random cyctochrome c sequences) as evidence for another naturalistic hypothesis (commom descent). The problem with this is that the issue under debate is not one naturalistic scenario vs. another (less likely one ), but instead creation vs. evolution. Even before cytochrome c sequence data was calculated it was already knwn that life exists in a nested hierarchy with humans and chimpanzees being relatively close to each other. Creationists already believed that God had created life according to a pattern and I believe fully expected a pattern of genotypic similarities corresponding to phenotypes. In fact regarding the pattern the non creationist molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote:
"One of the most remarkable features of these new biochemical discoveries is undoubtedly the way in which the pattern of molecular diversity seem to correspond to the predictions of typology." Evolution: A Theory in Crisis page 290.*
Since creation according to typology is an option that also predicted the pattern of similarities, the negative evidence against random sequence odds is not necessarily positive evidence for common descent.
*In fact is a whole chapter in the book Evolution a Theory in Crisis specifically discusses the pattern of cyctohrome c and how the pattern is much better explained by typology rather than common descent.