genuineoriginal
New member
You can continue to think so.
I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
If what looks like a finger bone? A whale flipper bone?
Does a finger bone have joints? I know that a finger has joints where its bones are connected one to another; but I'd not heard that a finger bone, itself, has joints.
Why isn't what a finger bone? A whale flipper bone?
If by "it" you are referring to a system of whale flipper bones forming a whale flipper, then I'd say that "it" is a system of whale flipper bones forming a whale flipper. Of course, I, for one, would never call a system of whale flipper bones forming a whale flipper, "a fingerbone".
Would you also teach us about griffins and manticores, Professor?
(By the way, are you using flipper bones to type your TOL posts, Professor?)
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
When the American Association for the Advancement of Science calls it "a well supported idea" and some random person on the internet calls it nonsense. I think I'm going to go with the AAAS.
The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education.
Ah, I see the AAA"S" has recruited you to hand out tracts for them. Well, at least you're honest enough to admit that you're not willing to think rigorously without their leave, and that they've not given it to you.
When confronted with the truth that they, the AAA"S", are calling nonsense "a well supported idea", do they defer to some random person on the internet by saying, "We think we're going to go with Alate_One"?
No, Scientific laws are not observations. Observations are what scientists call "facts."
Theories are predictions by scientists, about what will happen under specific circumstances, which have been validated by repeated tests or observations. Scientific theories not only predict, but explain why it is so.
No. That's wrong, too. Scientific theories are hypotheses, the predictions of which, have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.
Consensus is merely the recognition by scientists that the evidence is sufficient. Lacking evidence that the predictions were confirmed, the hypothesis remains a hypothesis.
Learn about it here:
https://lifehacker.com/the-difference-between-a-fact-hypothesis-theory-and-1732904200
And we have a winner. :first:
genuineoriginal
New member
You are confused.
You have yet to address this:
The problem is that Meyers was assuming a craniate vertebrate with a human-like eye and musculature. But the evidence shows, that the evolution of this feature occurred because the muscles existed before there were vertebrates with crania, and the route of that muscle was though the same tissue, in an entirely different position:
Comparative morphology and development of extra-ocular muscles in the lamprey and gnathostomes reveal the ancestral state and developmental patterns of the vertebrate head
Daichi G. Suzuki, Yuma Fukumoto, Miho Yoshimura, Yuji Yamazaki, Jun Kosaka, Shigeru Kuratani & Hiroshi Wada
Zoological Lettersvolume 2, Article number: 10 (2016)
The ancestral configuration of the vertebrate head has long been an intriguing topic in comparative morphology and evolutionary biology. One peculiar component of the vertebrate head is the presence of extra-ocular muscles (EOMs), the developmental mechanism and evolution of which remain to be determined. The head mesoderm of elasmobranchs undergoes local epithelialization into three head cavities, precursors of the EOMs. In contrast, in avians, these muscles appear to develop mainly from the mesenchymal head mesoderm. Importantly, in the basal vertebrate lamprey, the head mesoderm does not show overt head cavities or signs of segmental boundaries, and the development of the EOMs is not well described. Furthermore, the disposition of the lamprey EOMs differs from those the rest of vertebrates, in which the morphological pattern of EOMs is strongly conserved. To better understand the evolution and developmental origins of the vertebrate EOMs, we explored the development of the head mesoderm and EOMs of the lamprey in detail. We found that the disposition of lamprey EOM primordia differed from that in gnathostomes, even during the earliest period of development. We also found that three components of the paraxial head mesoderm could be distinguished genetically (premandibular mesoderm: Gsc+/TbxA–; mandibular mesoderm: Gsc–/TbxA–; hyoid mesoderm: Gsc–/TbxA+), indicating that the genetic mechanisms of EOMs are conserved in all vertebrates. We conclude that the tripartite developmental origin of the EOMs is likely to have been possessed by the latest common ancestor of the vertebrates. This ancestor’s EOM developmental pattern was also suggested to have resembled more that of the lamprey, and the gnathostome EOMs’ disposition is likely to have been established by a secondary modification that took place in the common ancestor of crown gnathostomes.
Puzzling that Meyers didn't realize this.
:chuckle:
Bold claim. However, reading your quote shows no evidence, just descriptions of what there is. Moreover, the challenge is not addressed.
Perhaps you didn't read it.
And they still have no idea.
See?
No?
Let me spell it out clearly for you. Here, we'll type slowly:
The challenge: Describe how this evolved.
Meyers: I don't know.
Your source: It is not known how this evolved (ie, I don't know).
It must be embarrassing to consistently have your own sources admit that they can't solve the problem you Googled them to answer.
Next time perhaps read them first?
No?
OK. :idunno:
Bold claim. However, reading your quote shows no evidence, just descriptions of what there is. Moreover, the challenge is not addressed.
Perhaps you didn't read it.
| The ancestral configuration of the vertebrate head has long been an intriguing topic in comparative morphology and evolutionary biology. |
And they still have no idea.
| One peculiar component of the vertebrate head is the presence of extra-ocular muscles (EOMs), the developmental mechanism and evolution of which remain to be determined. |
See?
No?
Let me spell it out clearly for you. Here, we'll type slowly:
The challenge: Describe how this evolved.
Meyers: I don't know.
Your source: It is not known how this evolved (ie, I don't know).
It must be embarrassing to consistently have your own sources admit that they can't solve the problem you Googled them to answer.
Next time perhaps read them first?
No?
OK. :idunno:
Right Divider
Body part
Oh the irony!
Here's a simple guide to terms. Not strictly definitions, but a guide to how to conduct yourselves in a rational discussion.
Hypothesis: An idea.
Theory: An idea that has not been rejected. Essentially a glorified hypothesis.
Fact: Things both sides agree to.
Law: Unprovable, but nonetheless essential rules.
Hypothesis: An idea.
Theory: An idea that has not been rejected. Essentially a glorified hypothesis.
Fact: Things both sides agree to.
Law: Unprovable, but nonetheless essential rules.
Last edited:
Ah, The Stripe Alternate Dictionary.
Have you ever taken a science course in your life?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I look at creationism unlike my own, as saying, Yes, those fossils are dead organisms that once lived. I say, Adam and Eve had bellybuttons too, it doesn't mean they gestated in their mother's womb, because we know they had no mother. They were just made in one day.
This doesn't depend upon whether Adam and Eve had bellybuttons, if modern science were to transport back in time to the sixth day, and examine Adam and Eve medically and physiologically and probably even linguistically, we would all agree they look to be at least in their twenties, or whatever quote-unquote "age" they were made. Their real age on the seventh day, is one day. Not 21 years.
This doesn't depend upon whether Adam and Eve had bellybuttons, if modern science were to transport back in time to the sixth day, and examine Adam and Eve medically and physiologically and probably even linguistically, we would all agree they look to be at least in their twenties, or whatever quote-unquote "age" they were made. Their real age on the seventh day, is one day. Not 21 years.
For those who are confused and a bit lazy, here's part of the Wikipedia definition of Scientific Theory:
The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid.
The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid.
Ah, The Darwinist idea of a discussion.
Have you ever engaged in sensible dialogue in your life?
Thousands of times, but never with you.
Are you saying you're just here to troll? Because there's a remedy for that...
Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to believe His claims of Godhood. I believe both of these things are true, and it is unfortunate that many Christians insist on rejecting science. This creates a stumbling block for many Christians where there need not be one.
Science is simply the study of the natural world that God has given us with the minds God has given us. Evolution is supported by four major types of evidence:
Fossils
DNA evidence
Biogeography
Anatomy and Development (Evo-devo)
So here's a piece of evidence here:
A Gray whale skeleton. For those that reject evolution, why do whales have fingers in their flippers?
Dorudon skeleton. Why do fossil whales have hind legs?
Note that the title of this post is also the title of a book I have enjoyed:
I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution: Paperback – March 4, 2009
by Denis O. Lamoureux
Also of interest: Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the Light of Evolution.
The fact that you "love Jesus" is irrelevant. The question is does He love you.
Merely pointing out that Mr. Stripe, who questions my ability to "engage in a sensible dialog" is in fact incapable of that himself. I do believe I have presented some perfectly sensible arguments here, and tried to correct some misunderstandings or false statements made in this thread. I do not initiate the kind of name calling and accusations that some here enjoy, but I do occasionally respond to such provocations.
You choose to allow those posters whose ideas you agree with behave in a ungentlemanly manner , and threaten those who bother responding to the insults and lies that are thrown at them. Is Creationism so hard to defend without resorting to such behavior?
Alate_One
Well-known member
:rotfl: So true.
Alternative definitions, alternative facts, etc. Long before they became popular!
Let's try again . . .
You can start by not asserting your theory as fact. :thumb: