Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
From your link
Although remarkable, the morphological features of intermediate-necked giraffids [] are not direct ancestors to the long-necked giraffe.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What's the difference between "evolution" and "adaptation"?
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
From your link
Although remarkable, the morphological features of intermediate-necked giraffids [] are not direct ancestors to the long-necked giraffe.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
You're just showing how clueless you are when it comes to science. Scientists criticize and question each other all the time. That's why if you go to scientific conferences, the Q&A sessions after many presentations get quite heated. Shoot, that's why there's a Q&A session to begin with.....so scientists can question each other.
So no, it's not that you or anyone else questions anything. It's that you make grand, sweeping accusations of deliberate fraud and deception against entire groups of professionals, even though (as you've admitted) you have no idea what they're doing or what they're even talking about. Not only that, but in doing all this you yourself perpetuate fraudulent material (e.g., Comfort's videos, the Einstein article). In just the short amount of time I've interacted with you here, you've propagated about as many hoaxes and deceptions as have existed in the entire history of evolutionary biology!
Simply put, you're not at all honest and are extremely hypocritical.
As far as the rest of your post regarding your talking point of "it's adaptation, not evolution", while it's nice to see you cite something other than TWS for once, your citing of the Encyclopedia Britannica is rather odd. The reason is, in reading through their sections on adaptation and evolution, they basically say that populations adapt by evolving.
Here is how they define "adaptation" (relative to the examples we're discussing).....
Second, and more commonly, the word adaptation refers either to the process of becoming adapted or to the features of organisms that promote reproductive success relative to other possible features. Here the process of adaptation is driven by genetic variations among individuals that become adapted to—that is, have greater success in—a specific environmental context. A classic example is shown by the melanistic (dark) phenotype of the peppered moth (Biston betularia), which increased in numbers in Britain following the Industrial Revolution as dark-coloured moths appeared cryptic against soot-darkened trees and escaped predation by birds. The process of adaptation occurs through an eventual change in the gene frequency relative to advantages conferred by a particular characteristic, as with the coloration of wings in the moths.
The third and more popular view of adaptation is in regard to the form of a feature that has evolved by natural selection for a specific function. Examples include the long necks of giraffes for feeding in the tops of trees, the streamlined bodies of aquatic fish and mammals, the light bones of flying birds and mammals, and the long daggerlike canine teeth of carnivores.
The third and more popular view of adaptation is in regard to the form of a feature that has evolved by natural selection for a specific function. Examples include the long necks of giraffes for feeding in the tops of trees, the streamlined bodies of aquatic fish and mammals, the light bones of flying birds and mammals, and the long daggerlike canine teeth of carnivores.
So "adaptation" is a process where populations undergo changes in allele frequencies, due to natural selection acting on heritable traits that arise via mutation. Well guess what? That's evolution!
Thus, your argument "that's adaptation, not evolution" makes absolutely no sense.
Incorrect. "Speciation" is the evolution of new species. Also, "finch" is a taxonomic family, not a species. So your argument is no different than after seeing evidence of common ancestry between humans and chimps, saying "But they're still hominids".
First, you still haven't defined the term "kind". All you did was list examples.
Second, exactly how did you determine that dogs, cats, insects, birds, and fish are all "kinds"?
Third, if all birds are a single kind, why did Noah take a raven and a dove onto the ark?
Finally, if all birds are a single "kind", does that mean all birds evolved from a common ancestor? The same for fish and insects......are all the species for each descended from a common ancestor?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
The new Tesla?
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
I have a cousin convinced he can make a perpetual motion machine using plans that he found on Google. He came to this realizing after a dream he had where God told him to build one. (Completely honest.) He's also convinced that he will soon receive a new revelation from the Lord and write a New New Testament.
Holidays are fun.
I call that "normal"!!!
They should rename this forum to the new biblical Tesla forums!!! Where the Sort of a pseudo science types squares off with pseudo religion types in which the two end up more alike than different. Sounds like a cohen brothers movie or an old Monte python skit! It appears Douglas Adams wasn't fiction actually.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I like that. I'm thinking of marketing miniature wind turbines, that can be mounted on electric cars to generate electricity on the go, it would pay for itself and save money on charging
finally someone on here is thinking "application" not just
" theoretical"!! That's the biggest problem with RF, it's all theoretical. That's my theory anyway. Some days I believe that, other days I don't believe that, and other days I am Sort of agnostic about the whole affair as well!!!. Lol
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Oh, if you want practical application, then......
Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics
In a nutshell, the authors of the paper developed a statistical model that is based on evolutionary relationships of diverse taxa and applied it to genomic sequences. The result was a prediction of genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy, even when the data is sparse or noisy.
So now one has to wonder.....where is the equivalent (or superior) work from ID creationists?
i love all references to Bayesian statistics!!! Read its history it's weirdly applicable to religious forums!!! And i also think you have absolutely shown creationisms weakness no baysiean statistics!!! The problem though if someone like Ken ham can't understand the bible then I cant statistically see how he is going to be able to understand Bayesian statistics! I have tried to see if bayesian statistics works In real world application with mixed results. I would follow my chart i created and tell my girlfriend she was having sex with me tonight according to my Bayesian study of her. That always seemed to not work. When i introduced alcohol and music, and I said "bayesian study of her" she was more receptive!!!! Apparently it is very accurate under the influence of alcohol!!!!
Last edited:
Derek500
Wish I could change this to AUD
Interesting. How exactly did you apply Bayesian Phylogenomics when you were having sex with your drunk girlfriend? Please expand.
With this really nicely scented lavender oil that I got at a boutique store that the sales lady swore to me would be the perfect applicator!!!! My girlfriend is one hot model. I dated a Bayesian model once. She went om and om how predictable i was. Got tired of her boring. Here is my hot model girlfriend photo. Although it may get banned from RD too much model. naked
.
Last edited:
Derek500
Wish I could change this to AUD
You still haven't explained how this relates to Bayesian Phylogenomics.With this really nicely scented lavender oil that I got at a boutique store that the sales lady swore to me would be the perfect applicator!!!! My girlfriend is one hot model. I dated a Bayesian model once. She went om and om how predictable i was. Got tired of her boring. Here is my hot model girlfriend photo. Although it may get banned from RD too much model. naked
I take it that you don't have an answer to how evolutionary theory is applied to genomic sequences and how genetic functions can be predicted as a result?
Last edited:
In the movie avatar, which are the real characters and which ones are not? The answer is, none of them. Its light boucing off a canvas or a screen emanating light thats real as its experienced not modeled. All modeling is as real as my hot model nothing more than that. When you put it against creationism? Is that actually anything other than an idea in someone s head? No. Math can be accurate but so is my model and so is a photograph nothing more than that. Thinking that creationism or intelligent design is more than just fantasy rationalizing is odd thinking by supporters and opponents. It's also common in science and really it is just "normal" linguistic/mathematical recursion that dominates language.
Derek500
Wish I could change this to AUD
Goodness gracious, David T. Are you even going to try to answer the question? Word salads have got nothing to do with Bayesian Phylogenomics.
Let's take educated guesses based on your posts. You have no idea what Bayesian means. You have no idea what phylogenomics is. You have no idea what Bayesian Phylogenomics involves.
I have a degree in inference. In fact my degree was the original degree that was given at the first modern university the university of bologna in 1094. So while you infer that Bayesian statistics proves something, I am talking about inference directly which you clearly don't understand because you are convinced inference is reality, it's not. We can "read" nature, or we can read a book and we can infer all kinds of things with zero validity in context to either the book or to nature. So arguing your inference vs someone else's inference is well twiddle arguing with twiddle dumb don't you think? . Bayes developed Bayesian statistics to prove God existed. It has extreme inference bias and probably can be handy, in certain applications because you desire an outcome without even realizing it. But because the outcome matches ones bias does not mean anything at all due to inference itself. Its telelogicalism in application to nature when it becomes more than what it is. Its Bad science , bad religion.
As we can see from the examples used, "kinds" are rather self explanatory. Bears are a kind. But not all animals who look like bears, actually are. Koalas for example. Not all mammals are of a single "kind" but all feed their young milk. Similarity does not always mean relationship.
Dogs are a "kind". Cats are a "kind". Insects are a "kind"....birds are a "kind"....fish are a "kind". But science can tell us a little more about the details. What it cannot tell us with any certainty is that one "kind" ever evolved into another.
Where did you get yours?
Why is it that 'fish' is a kind, but 'mammal' is not? Or, for that matter, 'vertebrate'? Vertebrates only change into other vertebrates. Mammals only change into other mammals.
Please provide proof for the "change". Show us where there is morphing that makes one kind of mammal change into another.
Show us where one kind of vertebrate changed into another...similarity is automatically assumed to mean relationship.
I don't see the evidence to back up the suggestions. With millions of years and billions of creatures who have come and gone, why is the evidence not conclusive?
Elon certainly fits that!!