Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

You have NO evidence about DNA in the fossil record. Or were you not aware of that fact??? You make up **** with so much ease that you ought to sell used Cars on Craig's list

Quote:

If it works for micro it works for macro. There is no division between the two. It's all the same process. The fossil record shows it that way and genetic analysis confirms.

Macro evolution is a paradigm shift which introduces completely different ways of arranging the information which results in completely different purposes for the organism and the systems it is consisted of.

That amount of new information that changes cannot be done from random introduction of new information for a paradigm shift like flight without extinction occurring from the bad mutations that must be occurring at the same time. Plus, there is the natural lack of competitiveness that occurs to an animal as the animal goes through the morphological changes needed for flight but is still unable to fly thus also leading to extinction. Those two points were not factored into any mathematical analysis of this process being derived from random introduction of new information.

Macro evolution is a paradigm shift which introduces completely different ways of arranging the information

new information that changes cannot be done from random introduction of new information for a paradigm shift like flight without extinction occurring from the bad mutations that must be occurring at the same time.

Plus, there is the natural lack of competitiveness that occurs to an animal as the animal goes through the morphological changes needed for flight but is still unable to fly thus also leading to extinction.

S far as something from nothing how bout a simpl equation like
E=mc^2 , is it a reversable equation?? and if not, why not??

Can we assume that if a fossil shows that an alligator lived 10,000,000 years ago that alligator had DNA arranged in a code that is very similar to a current day alligator?

So we need to quit making up rules when interpreting scientific information that eliminates from the discussion philosophical points of view (naive realism and subjective idealism) that have been very successful in similar interpretations of information technology when naturalism has proven by its "nature" and, "track record of failure", to be wholly inadequate to suffice as the sole philosophical interpretation of the information and its origins as we discuss them

in Planck time it a happened before.

brianjakub wrote:

Quote:
If it works for micro it works for macro. There is no division between the two. It's all the same process. The fossil record shows it that way and genetic analysis confirms.
Macro evolution is a paradigm shift which introduces completely different ways of arranging the information which results in completely different purposes for the organism and the systems it is consisted of.

No it's not. Where did you get that idea?

You just made up a bunch of stuff without the tiniest shred of evidence. Nice work.

In evolution that is untrue. We have a large percentage of micro phenotypic changes lead to macro changes that ARE NOT better. macro- Adaptation macroevolution merely confer successful breeding not a damn thing more

All this you seem to know how? what about lichens, how-bout Carboniferous beetles with non flying wingsets.

You seem to fall back onto one of the miisunderstandings about evolution. Changes may occur to any indivduals offspring that make it more successfully fecund but its theoverall population that we say is evolving. hat happens to an individual is like a single nail in a house.

Equating doable "reverse engineering" with reconstructing life separated by many millions of generations is not in our quiver because we dont know the genomic equivalencis of what we need to mess with and we are only guessing

We can reanimate a columbian mammoth because we can see the DNA and recreate it in the lab.

It's called naive realism and subjective idealism. Archaeologists use it all the time. Their science would be as meaningless as biological evolution without it.

The fossil record shows it that way and genetic analysis confirms.

This guy is always asking for explanations, proof and evidence. He proivides zero evidence himself, and just maunders on with off-the-wall speculations which always end with him claiming he has confirmed ID. It's beyond me, and it's no longer even entertaining--it's just tedious.

I can see that your attempt at discussions are based upon one default locus and Im just fooling myself . Ive gone though the ID phase early in life and found it totally barren of anything scientific or even logical. Its all verbiage coating christian and conservative judaism and at least 3 wings of islam religions and its based upon ones need to feel important in the universe by being told by the agents of a deity.

farmer:
It's called naive realism and subjective idealism. Archaeologists use it all the time. Their science would be as meaningless as biological evolution without it.


brian:
By tht statement I can easily see that you neither understand evolution nor archeology and how each conducts investigations.

Noah lived 350 years after the flood. So this means 350x25,000=8,750,000 years of history just for Noah alone never mind his direct descendants. And the animals in the ark for 25,000 years....