₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
They don't have the freedom to disobey which is why there are punishments. Freedoms do not earn you punishments.

EDIT: The person with the absurdities is the person who believes in a magic sky daddy not the person giving examples from reality.

Okay, I can't answer this one without breaking mocking the daylights out of you.

Ihedinobi3:
Okay, I can't answer this one without breaking mocking the daylights out of you.

Go right ahead and expose the cobwebs in your brain.

johnydon22:
It's a typical eating your cake and having it.

Like; Buy this shoe, it's free but you have to pay $200 for the shoe lace but the shoe is free.

God's love is unconditional but he hates a sinner

Salvation is free but you must believe in God and do some other stuffs while at it.

The logic train is contradictory.

If everything we do is predetermined by God, then we cannot possible have free will since we can't choose otherwise.

It's either God determines or he doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

Apparently he thinks he can.

Its amazing the dissonance. I keep wondering how I carried such thoughts as a believer.

TV01:
I don't so much misunderstand TOE, as believe it isn't actually possible - no matter how explained. Neither is it evidenced, no matter how insisted. As for describing it as a deduction, I don't believe it is an honest one, based on the available evidence, or the possibility based on how we understand the code to work.

My conception of TOE is in a sense by the by, my desire here was to hear a credible defence of the position.

Having said that, my grasp of TOE was never as sketchy as to suggest one kind can give birth to another. After all, if the timescales postulated are collapsed, what is TOE actually saying?

TOE deduces that all life originated form a single point and, over time, different genus or kinds of creatures morph into others. My point being that no matter how much time, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection or adaptation, no creature morphs into another kind.


Species, or, variations of a kind is fine. Evidenced. But they remain the same kind - I cited dogs as an example here.

But changing into a new type, genus or kind cannot happen, as the code has limits to it's variability. And, over time variability is lost, not gained, such that morphing into something entirely different is possible - no matter how much time that elapses, or the number of changes that take place.



Earlier, you stated the below...


...which directly contradicts your statement above. Hence the excitement generated by the OP. So what evidence is there, other than mere deduction?


I'm not clear how this speaks to the subject at hand. The "evolution" of language, in most instances, is clearly evidenced and documented, clear lines can be drawn.

As for the birth point, mothers, of any ethnicity or background, couple with fathers of any ethnicity and background and, give birth to children, bar any unfortunate circumstances, with the power of speech, who can apprehend any language. Speaking, I would suggest, more to my point about variation within a core commonality (kind, genus).


Best

I decided no response I can give to your questions will do justice to the evolutionary theory so I think it best to point you to the resources that can better explain it, if you are interested. Some you might find interesting:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/compare-skeletons.html

LordReed:
I decided no response I can give to your questions will do justice to the evolutionary theory so I think it best to point you to the resources that can better explain it, if you are interested. Some you might find interesting:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/compare-skeletons.html

. It's good to see you have a commitment to evolution - even if unable to defend it.

Thank you for the references. I'm making my way through this page on the first site - I'll be back to advise.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html.


Cheers
TV

TV01:
. It's good to see you have a commitment to evolution - even if unable to defend it.

Thank you for the references. I'm making my way through this page on the first site - I'll be back to advise.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html.

I can defend it to the limits of my capabilities and I am sincere enough to admit when that limit has been reached.

Cheers

Cheers

LordReed:
I can defend it to the limits of my capabilities and I am sincere enough to admit when that limit has been reached.

Cheers

Holá, This is the opener on the introduction to evolutionary biology page;

What is Evolution?

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.

The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. [gene: a hereditary unit] So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. [gene pool: the set all of genes in a population] This change was, by definition, evolution.

The opening definition is vague to the point of meaningless, as it does not actually lead to a conclusion as to what this "change in gene pool" actually leads to or results in.

Secondly, the example cited is not so much a "change in the gene pool", more a pre-dominance of a certain colouring due to preference. This is akin to saying for example, that the preference of Naija men for light-skinned women leading to a increase in the number of light skinned women over time is a change in the gene pool and thus by definition evolution.

Did you by any chance read the link you posted? And would it be fair to say you are pretty much , if not totally, in agreement with the contents?


Cheers
TV



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5XSBQHz7B8 - please watch from 11.07 - just 30 seconds .

TV01:
Holá, This is the opener on the introduction to evolutionary biology page;

[/b] The opening definition is vague to the point of meaningless, as it does not actually lead to a conclusion as to what this "change in gene pool" actually leads to or results in.

Secondly, the example cited is not so much a "change in the gene pool", more a pre-dominance of a certain colouring due to preference. This is akin to saying for example, that the preference of Naija men for light-skinned women leading to a increase in the number of light skinned women over time is a change in the gene pool and thus by definition evolution.

Did you by any chance read the link you posted? And would it be fair to say you are pretty much , if not totally, in agreement with the contents?


Cheers
TV



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5XSBQHz7B8 - please watch from 11.07 - just 30 seconds .

Not sure why I never responded to this but here goes.

I am not sure what you mean by "The opening definition is vague to the point of meaningless". That statement perhaps the most basic statement of what evolution is. It is not meant to provide a statement of what the outcomes must be because there are no definitive paths that evolution must take.

I am not sure what your point is about the example since these kinds of adaptations are part of the mechanisms of evolution.

The bit about the video is funny. Not sure why a person taking several moments to think means evolution is not a fact.