Відео

Beautiful Truth...

Not very famous I would say.

I enjoy books on The Gap Theory I'm recently a Gap Creationist.

One more thing: the two-sex state is not only common for humans, it's common in all our vertebrate ancestors. This is something that Comfort failed to understand, moving from humans to elephants to dogs, despite the fact that this is the conserved evolutionary state for ALL of them. Of course Comfort doesn't accept evolution, which is why he was having a mental block. If you want to watch PZ Myers' presentation on Comfort's argument, go to this video: v=XVILvKDBxUA The section begins at 7:30.

...although it does prevent inbreeding by "selfing". Also, some non-adaptive characteristics get fixed in a population by genetic drift, and this is also more prevalent in smaller populations, so where there is more reason to prevent inbreeding (in a small population) there is also more genetic drift to fix mutations randomly. So both mechanisms could in principle be working together. Either way, the answer CERTAINLY isn't that males and females reproduced asexually! Evolution remains un-killed.

To give the basics on reproduction, dioecious (two sexes) reproduction evolved from monoecious reproduction (hermaphroditism). The male and female parts were already present, but they just needed to be divided into two sexes. This can happen by mutation. One of the commoner mutations in the hermaphroditic nematode, C. elegans, is maleness, which happens (IIRC) at a rate of 1 per 10,000 births in the population. Why the sexual division of labor should be selective is admittedly less understood...

I was halfway in the middle of composing my reply when I realized I misread you. And I wouldn't have known what you were getting at if I hadn't just seen a lecture the other day by PZ Myers: you're using Ray Comfort's claim that sexual reproduction had to evolve for *humans* in men and women, independently. Comfort claims that prior to that, men and women reproduced themselves separately by binary fission. This... is very, very wrong. In fact, it's impossible to overstate how wrong it is.

...changes. Finally, we do agree on the mechanisms of evolution in that we all agree that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift exist and have played some part in evolutionary changes. I don't know of a single biologist who would disagree with that. The issue of contention is *how much of a role* each had to play in each lineage. And since this issue doesn't impact the evidence that evolution has occurred, we *can* call it a fact even when arguing about relative contributions.

"common creator" was trying to perfect the proteins for each individual organism, you'll have to show a) why anatomy gives the same nested hierarchy, b) why gene families give the same nested hierarchy *including nonfunctional pseudogenes*, c) why the majority of the DNA changes are not at functional sites, but sites not or less under selective constraint, and d) evidence of the creator independent of the thing to be explained and evidence that this creator was capable of making the necessary...

...multiple lines of evidence that convinces, not just one "key proof" that can--hope against hope--be debunked, taking all of evolution with it. If you wish to posit that a "common creator" explains this, then you will have to explain why it saw fit to individually create species with all the appearances of relatedness, including tinkering just that little bit with each species' DNA to make it show spurious nested patterns of inheritance from common ancestors. If you want to claim that the...

That is not the "key proof of evolution". Like most creationists, you simply don't understand what it means to make a DNA-based phylogeny. You think it's the existence of DNA itself that is the evidence, not the demonstration of a nested hierarchy of species which is the pattern we expect if evolution occurred, and which is independently consistent with DNA-based evidence from different genes and genetic sequences, with anatomical evidence, with the fossil record, etc. etc. It's the power of...

...although he has a website (ooh!). But I doubt its more popular than his namesake's from Dancing with the Stars: only creationists seem to care about him. Darwin's views were an attempt to explain HEREDITY, not Lamarckism. Darwin thought certain Lamarckist views, which he called the "effects of use and disuse" were consistent with pangenesis, but that wasn't his focus and he was very clear about selection being the far more important mechanism. You should read "Origin" for his views. I did.

"Lamarck's Signature" may speak of a revival of Lamarckism, but Steel's colleagues certainly do not. Steel's ideas about learned immune responses being passed back to germ line DNA is not accepted by anybody because the evidence for it simply isn't there, and it's not apparent how it would be adaptive even if it happened. The existing model of the innate and adaptive immune system has yet to be overturned. Derek Hough hasn't even tried to gather any evidence for his "self-developing genome",...

Where do you find the word "unfit" in the part you quoted? IT ISN'T THERE. And he did not try to revise Lamarck's theory; he developed a mechanism (two, in fact) of evolution of his own. Even if Darwin had turned out just a gloss on Lamarckism, it has been 154 years since he wrote "Origin". Lamarckian mechanisms are excluded from modern evolutionary theory, which is based on the synthesis of Mendelian genetics and evolutionary mechanisms. You need to address it as it exists NOW, not in 1859.

That is NOT Darwin's prediction! It is a ridiculous misrepresentation of Darwin's thought. Thinking for even two seconds together about evolution will show you why: the fittest forms are those which will come to dominate the gene pool/population. If we take fossilization as sampling from a population, the greater probability is that it will sample from the fittest organisms that predominate in the population. And cladistics DOES NOT define intermediate forms, but precisely the opposite!

So then how do you explain creationists like Hugh Ross? He explicitly rejects the young earth part of young earth creationism and yet is opposed to evolution.

How is that a prediction of evolutionary theory? Fossils are the mineralized remains of dead organisms. So what's the logic here: organisms with good fitness live forever? What evolution actually predicts is the type of transitions, where we will find them, and that we'll see fewer modern species, then modern genera, modern families, etc. the further back we go. It also predicts affinities between modern species and fossil forms in the same or nearby locations. This is precisely what we observe.

That's only a problem if you think that preformationism is required of evolution, but it isn't. We've been getting along quite happily with the knowledge that development is epigenetic, and if you want some insights into the marriage of developmental biology and evolution, I suggest you ditch this book and pick up Carroll's "Endless Forms Most Beautiful", Raff's "The Shape of Life", or Lewontin's own "The Triple Helix" among many, many others instead.

"The point is that there has been a long debate, basically 6-day creationism (a thesis) v evolution (an antithesis), but both are in error." And this is historically false. By the time Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species", belief in a 6ky Earth had collapsed of its own accord and most geologists accepted long ages even when they considered themselves creationists. Evolution isn't in opposition to creationism because of geological ages, but because of special creation. That should be obvious.

and he is commenting on sociology and evolutionary psychology, not evolution itself. and he has admitted to letting his own Marxist beliefs effect his scientific work. so please... get the real facts next time

So if someone like Sarah Palin accepts the scientific fact of evolution (watch?v=JDrhVR8d2Gk), therefore she "cannot believe in God"? What's wrong with this picture? As the man said, the #1 fallacy of creationism is its assertion that accepting evolution as scientific fact means embracing atheism. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of god-believers disagree. [Oh, and spare us the no-true-Scotsman response. Yes, those evolution-accepting theists believe just as much in a "deity" as you do.]

Visit shair trust for more info...

This is so great, Im a hair stylist myself and im so happy to see this video. What is the organisation called and where is it specifically based?