Jump to content


Photo

Is Charles Darwin The Most Overrated Figure In History?


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#61 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 27 May 2017 - 08:50 PM

 

Biologists don't really use c-value to determine phylogeny.

i wonder why.
could it be that it smashes the crap out of the gradual accumulation paradigm?

c-values definitely show that genomes aren't added to, like adding beads to a string.

 

 

Because it doesn't make much sense to do so, and you aren't making any sense here. This has nothing to do with gradualism.



#62 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 707 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 28 May 2017 - 05:34 AM

Biologists don't really use c-value to determine phylogeny.

i wonder why.
could it be that it smashes the crap out of the gradual accumulation paradigm?

c-values definitely show that genomes aren't added to, like adding beads to a string.

 
Because it doesn't make much sense to do so, and you aren't making any sense here. This has nothing to do with gradualism.

i believe it has everything to do with gradualism.
without gradualism, the entire modern synthesis would fall apart, and that's exactly what's happening.
evolution isn't gradual, nor is it progressive.
this is probably why waddingtons work was outright ignored, and why mcclintok was ridiculed, because they showed changes could happen without the corresponding genetic additions.

i have no idea why you are having a problem accepting this, the facts are undeniable.
the natural selection/gradual accumulation paradigm is probably one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on humanity.

#63 Dredge

Dredge

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 31 May 2017 - 10:14 PM

how so?

are you saying a doctor takes into account whether a germ evolved from some other germ when administering their "cure"?
to imply that it matters whether you came from a blade of grass or an oak tree makes a difference to medical diagnosis is ridiculous.

 
It has to deal with keeping superbugs under control. We are literally running out of types of medication to give to people because bacteria are evolving resistance to the drugs we use. Any competent doctor or nurse needs to be aware of this in order to properly deal with patients on a daily basis.
That's true, but accepting that all life shares a common ancestor doesn't help the medical profession fight super-bugs, imo. The common ancestor thing is an irrelevance.

#64 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 707 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 01 June 2017 - 01:09 PM

That's true, but accepting that all life shares a common ancestor doesn't help the medical profession fight super-bugs, imo. The common ancestor thing is an irrelevance.

scientifically, we came from eukaryote super groups, a group of cells.
this comports well with what glansdorf says, and he also said HGT wasn't as prevalent as some has assumed.
i believe HGT was prevalent during pre eukaryote super groups, but rare after.
this explains why almost all eukaryotes have abundant bacterial sequences.
eukaryote retrortransposons is probably the result of pre eukaryote HGT transfer.
all of the rest of eukaryote HGT events was most likely the result of natural genetic engineering.

i'm positive there is yet more to be discovered however.
the possible transposon code and molecular language for starters.

i'm quite confident DNA utilizes a sandbox concept, how else can the cell engineer genetic sequences without upsetting the cells functionality without such a concept?

no, evolution isn't darwinian.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users