Von professionellen Übersetzern, Unternehmen, Websites und kostenlos verfügbaren Übersetzungsdatenbanken.
What product is advertised?
google translit inggris indonnesia
Letzte Aktualisierung: 2020-01-29
while the ship is being built, constant checks are made to make sure she is being built to the standards of the society. classification will show that the ship is seaworthy and able to carry, she has been designed to carry. nowadays ship yard is organized so that each stage in the building of a ship is done in a continuous chain of shops.
scientevid learning Originally Posted by Ocelot Hi Radrook, Thanks once again for your response. Indeed I was just checking that I'd located the one article amongst many that you thought addressed my claim. As I detailed, it doesn't. Well actually some people do make that claim. I've seen much talk from various brands of creationist that claim that MacroEvolution (evolution of new taxa of the species level and above) is impossible. They use similar arguments as you do so please forgive me for my presumption. I do apologise. Of course the fact that new species have been observed to evolve both in the lab and in the wild, make this claim one of the more ridiculous creationist claims but it is nonetheless one that I have encountered. I asgee that speciation does and has occurred. It's interesting to me that you have raised the bar. You accept that not all individual species need to have been created. Presumably you accept that Lions, Tigers and the domestic Cat all have a common ancestor? Am I correct in my estimation of your beliefs. Yes. If so do you also accept the more controversial conclusion that Homo Sapiens has a common ancestor with Chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas and Orang Utans. It may be more controversial for it's broad implications to theology and philosophy but perhaps because of this added interest it is a conclusion backed by even greater quantities of genetic evidence. No, that's where we diverge. Of course the genetic evidence that all placental mammals share a common ancestor more recent than the one they share with marsupials is as compelling as the evidence for a common ancestor amongst other Genus, Family, Order or Classes. If your theory is true, it would be interesting to see if the genetic evidence could tell us what the original common ancestors were beyond which we can find no further link. For example lets take for want of a better choice a red kangaroo named Charles. You and I both agree that Charles shares a common ancestor with all other red kangaroos, the genetic evidence backs this up. I see no reason to object. According to the genetic evidence Charles also shares a more distant common ancestor with other species of kangaroo such as grey kangaroos, and antilopine kangaroos. Ok. The genetic evidence suggests that further back in time these kangaroos shared a common ancestor with a variety of other species of kangaroo, wallaby and walleroo of the macropus genus. Would you agree? Sure. If so then the genetic evidence further indicates that the macropus genus shares a common ancestor with all other members of the macropod family including various other Kangaroos and Wallabies, the quokka and pademelons. Would you agree that these are all of the same "kind" sharing a common ancestor. That might be acceptable. If so then the genetic evidence indicates that the macropod family share a more distant common ancestor with all members of the order diprodontia. This includes possums koalas and wombats. Is it conceivable to you that the genetic evidence is correct and that these creatures all share a common ancestor with one another? Could they all be of the same "kind"? If they are of the same kind. In fact could all the australidelphia super order of marsupials share a common ancestor as the genetic evidence would suggest, if so are they collectively a "kind" Or do they, as the empirical evidence would suggest, all share a common ancestor with all other marsupials. Are marsupials a kind? I presume that you do not accept that some time in the cretaceous there was an early mammal type reptile or therapsid from whom both you and Charles can claim lineage. However how do you explain why when the genetic evidence is so clear? Because I believe that the data is being interpreted to fit into a preconceived notion. It doesn’t matter where you place the bar, the genetic evidence is clear, there is only one "kind" currently on planet earth we are all descended from the same single common ancestor. I too have no problem when seriously considering a theory of intelligent design that the designer might choose to vary their techniques. What I have a problems with is why the techniques should so closely match a picture of common descent with particular variations being more closely clustered amongst species that appear to be more closely related. Creationists did not make this prediction. Evolutionary biologists did. The examination of the evidence continues to uphold the prediction of the evolutionary biologists. Unless Creationism can explain this remarkable coincidence it is deficient as a theory. I'm afraid your meaning here is not entirely clear to me. However the assumption that evolution is true is rather the point. If you make that assumption you make a prediction that turns out to be true. If you don't make that assumption you need an alternative explanation for the prediction. I offer the analogy once more. If you assume that I am related to my son you will expect a roughly 50% match between the various genes in highly variable alleles. If you do not make that assumption and otherwise find the 50% match you must find another explanation (perhaps we are brothers...) If you find more genetic matches amongst placental mammals than between placental mammals and marsupials this is explained by assuming that placental mammals sharing a more recent common ancestor amongst themselves than the one they might share with marsupials. If you reject that assumption then it would benefit your case to offer an alternative that fits the known facts at least as well. I agree that certain animals share more genetic material in common than other kinds. As I said previously, some of that sharing is due to a common ancestor called a kind in Genesis. What I don't agree with is the transformation of one kind into another or that all living things are ultimately related. Or that my ancestor was a one celled creature which slowly turned into a fish, and later into a reptile, and later into some type of piglike animal as the evolutionist interpretations of data say. Not simply because it is repulsive thought, but because it all depends on a mindless process which I and most human beings on this earth, including human beings who are scientists, find unbelievable due to its inherent improbability and based on the cause and effect phenomena we perceive which indicates that machinelike complex things do not make themselves but are the product of mind or else are programmed to replicate themselves by a mind. Hi again Radrook, It's good to hear back from you. This appears to be a derail from my original question of how do you account for the genetic evidence of common descent if not through common descent. Originally Posted by Radrook It's not the frequency it's the mutation process itself that is a dubious choice for the organization of complex organisms. Originally Posted by Radrook I never denied the occurrence of neutral or beneficial mutations. It is the unlikelyhood of a mindless process with its high probability of being harmful to an organism being said to ultimately lead to the intricate organization as is evident in the human eye with its iris, to adjust the entry of light, the lens to focus that light, on a screen called the retina which is connected to an optic nerve, which reacts to the radiation by coding it into neural impulses, which in turn arrives at a specialized part of the brain which can decode those impulses and turn them into the perception of images. Sorry but in the presence of such strong evidence to the contrary, I just can't buy into the mindless mutation explanation First let me congratulate you on your acceptance of the existence of small positive mutations. This is a major step towards your understanding of what evolution is truly about. It is a step that some creationists are not prepared to make even in the face of reproducible empirical evidence. It appears that you are not sufficiently aware of the intricate complexity that can be produced by undoubtedly mindless processes. Snowflakes, have complexity, a rock arch has irreducible complexity, the water cycle is a steam engine. There is nothing you have demonstrated to be beyond the reach of a mindless process. Are you familiar with John Conway's Game of Life. Draw a random pattern in this very simple purely mechanical 2D universe. The odds that within a few generations you'll see a small glider pattern. It looks designed but you know that you didn't design it. Genetic recipes for life allow new increases in complexity to build upon previous ones. This allows many small mutations to add up to a bigger one. As such it offers us the possibility for a pinnacle of "mindless design" It is in fact so good at design that genetic algorithms have been put to good use by human designers in computer simulations. For example a genetic algorithm produces a shape which is tested virtually for various structural properties. Those algorithms which produce the best designs are then used as the seeds for the next generation of designs. It is not uncommon for such a mindless process to produce "designs" superior in structural efficiency to any of intelligent origin. What evolutionary theory accepts can never evolve is a feature than cannot be broken down into many small neutral or positive stages. The discovery of such a feature would indeed be a problem for evolution. However it is difficult to demonstrate that a feature could not be the result of an appropriate evolutionary path. To do so would probably require examination of an infinite number of possible paths. Instead we get argument for incredulity: "I cannot see how this feature could have evolved, therefore it could not have evolved." I'm sure you don't need me to point out the flaw in this logic. In all cases that I'm aware of, biologists have made progress in discovering possible evolutionary paths for the formation of seemingly problematic features. You bring up the example of the eye as one candidate. This has of course been much discussed and I'm surprised that you do not acknowledge that the solution to this apparent conundrum has already been provided. In fact it was a topic discussed by Darwin himself, who also provided a solution. From here The gradual steps listed are briefly... • photosensitive cell • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin • pigment cells forming a small depression • pigment cells forming a deeper depression • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape • muscles allowing the lens to adjust From the same page you can find links detailing how each stage has been observed in the natural world. Since you accept that small positive mutation can occur and be subject to natural selection it should now be clear to you that the evolution of the eye can be broken down into a series of such steps.
english translation into Indonesian
Letzte Aktualisierung: 2014-10-27
Warnung: Enthält unsichtbare HTML-Formatierung