View Full Version : Question for Evolutionists
I have a serious, honest-to-goodness point/question here for evolutionists.
It's quite observable throughout ALL of creation that no sort of plant, animal or other being/object has ever been able to create anything greater than itself - to the contrary, anytime there is a genetic mutation, it's always for the worse. I.e. a snake w/ 3-heads, a person w/ down-syndrome etc.. it's never for the positive.
Can you please explain to me then, how something without ANY intelligence - pond scum - eventually worked its way into becoming a Human being?
Please spare me the attacks - I'd love an honest, scientific explanation for this.
From the outset, it seems we'd have to check our brains at the door to accept the idea that ONLY in evolution, do things have the ability to create things that are superior/better than they are.
Please help show me otherwise.
DannyR
03-09-2009, 02:51 PM
It's quite observable throughout ALL of creation that no sort of plant, animal or other being/object has ever been able to create anything greater than itselfI'd have to disagree with this premise. See below...
anytime there is a genetic mutation, it's always for the worse. I.e. a snake w/ 3-heads, a person w/ down-syndrome etc.. it's never for the positive.
I can name a number of mutations that result in beneficial results. Probably the most beneficial in our time is an immunity to HIV. Some people carry a mutant allele of the CCR5 gene that results in lack of expression of this protein on the surface of T-cells. Homozygous individuals are resistant to HIV infection and AIDS.
And the thing to remember about mutations is that negative mutations are usually NOT passed along if they kill the individual. Positive ones that do benefit however are. So even if harmful mutations outnumber beneficial ones a million to one, that is all that is needed for evolution to occur.
Can you please explain to me then, how something without ANY intelligence - pond scum - eventually worked its way into becoming a Human being? Yeah, lets not be overly broad. It would take far too long to explain this in one single post, when entire books and websites are devoted to the topic. How about this... go to http://www.talkorigins.org, read the FAQs there, then come back and ask questions.
Sorry.. but having immunities is not the same as a genetic mutation...
DannyR
03-09-2009, 03:00 PM
Sorry.. but having immunities is not the same as a genetic mutation...Having the genetic mutation is what provided the immunity. The mutation was present long before HIV existed. This is a pretty clear case where a specific known mutation, present in some individuals but not all, has a definable impact on how a disease ravages a community. So I think you need to back up your statement that immunities are not the same as a genetic mutation if you are going to argue that point, because generally this is how many beneficial mutations work... they provide some small benefit against a disease that appears.
Mr. P
03-09-2009, 03:55 PM
I have a serious, honest-to-goodness point/question here for evolutionists.
It's quite observable throughout ALL of creation that no sort of plant, animal or other being/object has ever been able to create anything greater than itself - to the contrary, anytime there is a genetic mutation, it's always for the worse. I.e. a snake w/ 3-heads, a person w/ down-syndrome etc.. it's never for the positive.
Can you please explain to me then, how something without ANY intelligence - pond scum - eventually worked its way into becoming a Human being?
Please spare me the attacks - I'd love an honest, scientific explanation for this.
From the outset, it seems we'd have to check our brains at the door to accept the idea that ONLY in evolution, do things have the ability to create things that are superior/better than they are.
Please help show me otherwise.
Your premise is flawed..My daughter who I helped create is way smarter that I was at her age.
I have a serious, honest-to-goodness point/question here for evolutionists.
I don't buy that honest stuff either. :poke:
It's quite observable throughout ALL of creation that no sort of plant, animal or other being/object has ever been able to create anything greater than itself
good question. hey danny, why don't you show us just one example from that link you provided that answers this point.
Your premise is flawed..My daughter who I helped create is way smarter that I was at her age.
I don't buy that honest stuff either. :poke:
smarter does not mean that you created something superior or greater than yourself. you still created only a human being. you have not created anything greater than what you are. :poke:
DannyR
03-09-2009, 03:58 PM
good question. hey danny, why don't you show us just one example from that link you provided that answers this point.P just did.
And my own example did as well. A child born with a single beneficial mutation that allows him to survive a disease others do not is greater than the adult who came before.
P just did.
And my own example did as well. A child born with a single beneficial mutation that allows him to survive a disease others do not is greater than the adult who came before.
posted same time:
smarter does not mean that you created something superior or greater than yourself. you still created only a human being. you have not created anything greater than what you are. :poke:
sgtdmski
03-09-2009, 04:02 PM
A reasonable question was presented. Let us talk about the mutation you cited, the mutation is not the addition of an allele, but rather a mutation which has a deletion of proteins associated with the normal ccr5 allele. Once again we see a mutation that is a subtraction, not an addition, meaning the mutation was caused not by genetics adding something new to the human genome but rather taking something away from the genome.
So the point still remains, how could a primordial liquid for first into a single cell, and then into the different various species in the plant and animal kingdoms, when the mutations that have been discovered by science have all shown that mutations within species result from subtraction and not addition?
dmk
Perhaps I need to be more clear in my OP:
Humans - who are arguably the most intelligent life-form we know of so far - have yet to create/invent/make anything greater than that of our own human body.
If we are THAT smart - i.e. we have a complex brain etc. How can pond-scum - which HAD NO BRAIN - ever find a way to create/morph itself into something far superior to what it was?
Does science really want me to believe that pond-scum was smarter/more intelligent to figure that out than we'll ever be?
DannyR
03-09-2009, 04:19 PM
Once again we see a mutation that is a subtraction, not an addition, meaning the mutation was caused not by genetics adding something new to the human genome but rather taking something away from the genome.
Its neither an addition nor a subtraction, but a change in function. A function that allows certain individuals to survive a disease, while others die. Those who die do not pass along the mutation.
when the mutations that have been discovered by science have all shown that mutations within species result from subtraction and not addition?Your whole language of addition/subtraction is wrong. Most mutations CHANGE some small factor of physiology in a way that didn't exist before.
Other examples of beneficial human mutations:
Patients with the QQ or H7H7 genotype had a decreased risk of myocardial infarction
Gbeta3-s appears to be associated with enhanced immune cell function in humans.
Ser447-Ter - reduces risk of CAD.
LPL Ser447-Stop mutation has a protective effect against the development of atherosclerosis and subsequent CAD
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
All it takes is for some small change to increase lifespan or the ability of a species to survive where others of its species do not. That is all that it takes for evolution to work.
And mutations aren't the only method of one's genetics changing. As I posted in a different thread, we get foreign DNA into our bodies all the time. Several virii permanently alter our genome, and that change can be passed along to our children. The "addition" of new code might cause a beneficial physiological reaction later down the road.
Does science really want me to believe that pond-scum was smarter/more intelligent to figure that out than we'll ever be?Humans do what pond-scum did all the time. I've posted several examples of mutations that benefit humanity as a whole. Pond scum did the same thing, with small mutations that increased its chance of survival. Absolutely nothing different.
The development of a complex brain is easily understood using such methods plus a few million years of time. Where one nerve ending provides a single cell organism with a benefit, two might do better. Simple mutation might cause that, and I can name a number of such locations that a simple change caused by a mutation could cause duplication of existing features throughout a body. Add time, two becomes a cluster, a cluster becomes a primitive brain, and a complex brain develops as further areas are added. The human brain didn't just develop all at once. Its very clear from the sections of it that certain areas came about later than earlier ones.
5stringJeff
03-09-2009, 05:54 PM
Having the genetic mutation is what provided the immunity. The mutation was present long before HIV existed. This is a pretty clear case where a specific known mutation, present in some individuals but not all, has a definable impact on how a disease ravages a community. So I think you need to back up your statement that immunities are not the same as a genetic mutation if you are going to argue that point, because generally this is how many beneficial mutations work... they provide some small benefit against a disease that appears.
If the mutation was present long before HIV was around, then it must not be an adaptation to the environment, as Darwinianism would have it.
DannyR
03-09-2009, 06:17 PM
If the mutation was present long before HIV was around, then it must not be an adaptation to the environment, as Darwinianism would have it.You're assuming a mutation is only useful for one thing. Its believed the same protection people have today against AIDS today probably protected folks against a form of smallpox in the past, as genetic tracing shows the mutation appeared sometime during the middle ages.
Also if a mutation doesn't cause any harm, there is no reason why it couldn't spread through a population normally, same as any other inherited trait. There is no telling how many useful mutations might be out there that protect us in unknown ways, blocking diseases we don't even see, or that will protect us in the future against some future disease.
5stringJeff
03-09-2009, 06:21 PM
Also if a mutation doesn't cause any harm, there is no reason why it couldn't spread through a population normally, same as any other inherited trait. There is no telling how many useful mutations might be out there that protect us in unknown ways, blocking diseases we don't even see, or that will protect us in the future against some future disease.
And what you chalk up to random mutations, I credit to intelligent design, by an Intelligent Designer.
DannyR
03-09-2009, 06:23 PM
If something complex must always be designed by some designer, then who created God?
darin
03-09-2009, 06:23 PM
evolutionists: Grapsing at every straw they can find which MIGHT under the right mind-altering drugs, show all this happened by random chance.
Intelligent Design: Reasonable conclusion based on the uniqueness and complexity of the biological, physical things around us.
If something complex must always be designed by some designer, then who created God?
God is not an organism, or anything else subject to the order He created in the universe.
DannyR
03-09-2009, 06:33 PM
God is not an organism, or anything else subject to the order He created in the universe.And IDers say evolutionists grasp at straws. I'm just applying their own definition to the problem. God is obviously a complex being. If he resides outside our universe just begs the question of who created the Universe he does in fact reside within. Complex beings can't just appear by "chance" according to you, and ID requires that such things must have been created in turn. Ergo, god has a God, who has a GOD etc. :laugh2: Its turtles all the way down! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down)
If something complex must always be designed by some designer, then who created God?
who created your life? the big bang? some cosmic event and....pooof, life happened. poooof....
perhaps you poooof too much
DannyR
03-09-2009, 07:03 PM
who created your life? the big bang? some cosmic event and....pooof, life happened. poooof....
perhaps you poooof too muchI'm smart enough to say simply I don't know what caused the Big Bang, and willing to look for the answer, rather than create some kludge that God had to do it. Because even if God did do it, I'm still stuck with the question of who created God. ID solves nothing. If anything, it adds to the problem by inserting yet another unknown variable to the issue.
Thats the problem with ID. It sees a complex problem, and rather than try and solve it, "pooof" as you say, God did it. Easy out.
Nevermind that pretty much every example of ID that have been used by major proponents as proof of ID do in fact have scientific explanations. The "pooof" allows IDers an excuse for sloppy science and they stop looking for the answers that might eventually be revealed.
ID is intrinsically flawed. It states that complex designs must have a designer, but expects this magical designer to have originated from nothing without a designer needed. If you believe that, then what is the difficulty that a universe might have the same beginning, yet no designer necessary.
DannyR;355414]I'm smart enough to say simply I don't know what caused the Big Bang, and willing to look for the answer, rather than create some kludge that God had to do it. Because even if God did do it, I'm still stuck with the question of who created God. ID solves nothing. If anything, it adds to the problem by inserting yet another unknown variable to the issue.
danny, we all know you are smart.....enough.....you don't need to remind us. funny how you think that it takes creation to counter your POV.
Thats the problem with ID. It sees a complex problem, and rather than try and solve it, "pooof" as you say, God did it. Easy out.
and how is your answer to this complex problem other than poooooof? are you going to tell me that it was a slow pooooooooof, some pooooooof that happened over time? come on danny, poooooof your magic dragon.
Nevermind that pretty much every example of ID that have been used by major proponents as proof of ID do in fact have scientific explanations. The "pooof" allows IDers an excuse for sloppy science and they stop looking for the answers that might eventually be revealed.
ID is intrinsically flawed. It states that complex designs must have a designer, but expects this magical designer to have originated from nothing without a designer needed. If you believe that, then what is the difficulty that a universe might have the same beginning, yet no designer necessary
face it danny, you don't have 100% proof, so you latch on to the poooof and attack that. you have nothing, so you attack that which also has no 100% proof. wow, just wow. you're so smart danny, so smart.
DannyR
03-09-2009, 07:32 PM
and how is your answer to this complex problem other than poooooof? Thats just the point. My answer ISN'T a pooof because I'm comfortable enough not knowing at this point in time. I don't need to create a kludge to solve the problem for me but will wait until the answers come in time through science. Anything else is conjecture... the equivalent of prejudging a prisoner even before a trial.
You however don't bother even looking because you think you already have the answer. A wrong answer, but that never bothers people of faith, until of course the answers suddenly show up... then its toss folks like Galileo into prison.
5stringJeff
03-10-2009, 05:56 PM
I'm smart enough to say simply I don't know what caused the Big Bang, and willing to look for the answer, rather than create some kludge that God had to do it. Because even if God did do it, I'm still stuck with the question of who created God. ID solves nothing. If anything, it adds to the problem by inserting yet another unknown variable to the issue.
Thats the problem with ID. It sees a complex problem, and rather than try and solve it, "pooof" as you say, God did it. Easy out.
Nevermind that pretty much every example of ID that have been used by major proponents as proof of ID do in fact have scientific explanations. The "pooof" allows IDers an excuse for sloppy science and they stop looking for the answers that might eventually be revealed.
ID is intrinsically flawed. It states that complex designs must have a designer, but expects this magical designer to have originated from nothing without a designer needed. If you believe that, then what is the difficulty that a universe might have the same beginning, yet no designer necessary.
Strictly speaking, ID says that the source of intelligence that we see in nature must have come from some other intelligent source. The best explanation for such a source would be something outside of nature: something science is unable to explain. But just because science isn't able to prove God's existence does not mean that He doesn't exist; in fact, if science were able to show scientific proof of God, it would have to show of a God that existed within nature. That's not logically possible if God is to be the source of intelligence in nature.
Thats just the point. My answer ISN'T a pooof because I'm comfortable enough not knowing at this point in time. I don't need to create a kludge to solve the problem for me but will wait until the answers come in time through science. Anything else is conjecture... the equivalent of prejudging a prisoner even before a trial.
You however don't bother even looking because you think you already have the answer. A wrong answer, but that never bothers people of faith, until of course the answers suddenly show up... then its toss folks like Galileo into prison.
danny, you think that you have the answer, so save your lecture about how i think i have the answer for someone who cares. holy lord, let's bring up what the catholic church did as somehow relevent to all religion and to this topic. your answer is a poooof danny. you even admit that you don't know, yet your posts indicate that you believe your answer is correct as you argue against my belief.
you can spew words and play word games all day danny, but it does not change the reality of your thoughts and your beliefs.
Strictly speaking, ID says that the source of intelligence that we see in nature must have come from some other intelligent source. The best explanation for such a source would be something outside of nature: something science is unable to explain. But just because science isn't able to prove God's existence does not mean that He doesn't exist; in fact, if science were able to show scientific proof of God, it would have to show of a God that existed within nature. That's not logically possible if God is to be the source of intelligence in nature.
interesting....
are you saying that man made science cannot prove god using man made science as man made science is trying to prove something that is infinite and so far above us, that man made science cannot possibly grasp the entire truth and power of god?
Missileman
03-10-2009, 06:08 PM
interesting....
are you saying that man made science cannot prove god using man made science as man made science is trying to prove something that is infinite and so far above us, that man made science cannot possibly grasp the entire truth and power of god?
Wow! A self-fulfilling POS argument.
These debates coupd go on forever, Really neither site has much going for it;
Christainity; the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathicly tell him that he is your master, so he can remove an evil force that is in every human because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree..
Or...
Atheism; the belief that there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, and then one day nothing magicly exploded and created everything, then everything formed together for no reason and created dinosaurs...
...take your pick...
DannyR
03-10-2009, 06:11 PM
you even admit that you don't know, yet your posts indicate that you believe your answer is correct as you argue against my belief. Yes, I happily admit areas where science doesn't yet have an answer. That is what scientists do... they push the boundaries.
We don't wave the problem away as already solved by filling in the unknowns with "God did it!"
the belief that there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, and then one day nothing magicly exploded and created everythingParticles pop into and out of existence out of nothing all around us all the time btw.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea
Yes, I happily admit areas where science doesn't yet have an answer. That is what scientists do... they push the boundaries.
We don't wave the problem away as already solved by filling in the unknowns with "God did it!"
Particles pop into and out of existence out of nothing all around us all the time btw.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea
yet you admit that you don't know if god did it....
your logic defeats itself
DannyR
03-10-2009, 06:44 PM
yet you admit that you don't know if god did itShow me any single piece of proof he did and I'll consider it. Physics doesn't have a complete answer to the Big Bang, but there is much more evidence present with science than I've ever seen with religion. And "God did it" isn't an answer, because one still must ask how he did it.
our logic defeats itselfDo you even know what the word logic means? Absence of an answer doesn't mean the cause must be magical.:laugh2:
Kathianne
03-10-2009, 06:47 PM
Show me any single piece of proof he did and I'll consider it. Physics doesn't have a complete answer to the Big Bang, but there is much more evidence present with science than I've ever seen with religion. And "God did it" isn't an answer, because one still must ask how he did it.
Do you even know what the word logic means? Absence of an answer doesn't mean the cause must be magical.:laugh2:
Not if you 'believe.' You're talking past each other.
Not if you 'believe.' You're talking past each other.
well....he is talking past me
but you are right, if i respond with the same response, a round we go. he admits the fact that he has no proof, yet, he demands i provide proof.
(yawn)
5stringJeff
03-10-2009, 07:25 PM
interesting....
are you saying that man made science cannot prove god using man made science as man made science is trying to prove something that is infinite and so far above us, that man made science cannot possibly grasp the entire truth and power of god?
I'm saying that God created the universe and everything in it, to include science and the laws of nature. He is therefore super-natural, above and not subject to the laws of nature, and therefore cannot be "observed" in nature as a cell or a galaxy can be.
5stringJeff
03-10-2009, 07:26 PM
Show me any single piece of proof he did and I'll consider it. Physics doesn't have a complete answer to the Big Bang, but there is much more evidence present with science than I've ever seen with religion. And "God did it" isn't an answer, because one still must ask how he did it.
You can't answer the question of "how" God did things using only the laws of nature. God's powers are not limited by the laws of nature.
I'm saying that God created the universe and everything in it, to include science and the laws of nature. He is therefore super-natural, above and not subject to the laws of nature, and therefore cannot be "observed" in nature as a cell or a galaxy can be.
then how do we understand god through nature? how do we admire god through nature....be it trees or galaxies.
i believe that god is subject to his own laws, so i don't understand how you believe that he is not subject to the laws of nature.
isn't it through god's creation, e.g., nature, that we understand him?
DannyR
03-10-2009, 07:32 PM
he admits the fact that he has no proof, yet, he demands i provide proof. Because I'm not the one claiming to know the answer to how the universe began at this time, so the burden of proof is on you.
Not if you 'believe.'
If your proof is just "I believe" that God did it, what happens to that belief when science eventually shows a concrete answer?
5stringJeff
03-10-2009, 07:32 PM
then how do we understand god through nature? how do we admire god through nature....be it trees or galaxies.
i believe that god is subject to his own laws, so i don't understand how you believe that he is not subject to the laws of nature.
isn't it through god's creation, e.g., nature, that we understand him?
Certainly, we learn about God through nature, but nature is His creation. It's like learning about an artist through his works of art, or about an author through his writings.
DannyR
03-10-2009, 07:34 PM
You can't answer the question of "how" God did things using only the laws of nature. God's powers are not limited by the laws of nature.And that is the sort of thinking that prevents science from looking for answers. Because until you look, how are you supposed to know if something is or is not possible according the the laws of nature? As I asked above, what happens to your "belief" when science shows exactly how something you assumed had to be supernatural is possible?
Because I'm not the one claiming to know the answer to how the universe began at this time, so the burden of proof is on you.
If your proof is just "I believe" that God did it, what happens to that belief when science eventually shows a concrete answer?
well, you have stated that my belief in how the universe was created is wrong....so, no, the bop is on you danny boy
Certainly, we learn about God through nature, but nature is His creation. It's like learning about an artist through his works of art, or about an author through his writings.
how is god not subject to the laws of nature?
5stringJeff
03-10-2009, 07:41 PM
And that is the sort of thinking that prevents science from looking for answers. Because until you look, how are you supposed to know if something is or is not possible according the the laws of nature? As I asked above, what happens to your "belief" when science shows exactly how something you assumed had to be supernatural is possible?
Well, the particular question of "how did nature come into being" cannot be answered by the laws of nature, because something that comes into existence (as the universe did) cannot create itself.
5stringJeff
03-10-2009, 07:42 PM
how is god not subject to the laws of nature?
How big is God?
PostmodernProphet
03-10-2009, 07:46 PM
and ID requires that such things must have been created in turn
sorry, but that simply isn't true.....there is nothing in the theory of intelligent design that requires the designer had a beginning.....science tells us that our universe HAD a beginning, but there is no requirement that everything which is, had to have a beginning
PostmodernProphet
03-10-2009, 07:48 PM
how is god not subject to the laws of nature?
a better question would be, why on earth would he be subject to the laws he created....if god could cause gravity, why couldn't he cause anti-gravity.....
How big is God?
how is god not subject to his own laws? you seem to be saying that god is bigger than his own laws, hence, above them. is that what you are saying?
PostmodernProphet
03-10-2009, 07:51 PM
interesting....
are you saying that man made science cannot prove god using man made science as man made science is trying to prove something that is infinite and so far above us, that man made science cannot possibly grasp the entire truth and power of god?
science is the study of the physical universe.....if god is not physical, then science is incapable of studying him.....
science is the study of the physical universe.....if god is not physical, then science is incapable of studying him.....
who created science
PostmodernProphet
03-10-2009, 07:53 PM
how is god not subject to his own laws? you seem to be saying that god is bigger than his own laws, hence, above them. is that what you are saying?
bigger, outside of, in control of....what difference does it make what label you put on it.....if he is capable of creating a law, he is capable of avoiding it, reverting it, working around it.....however you want to look at it, there is no reason to expect that the law he created has power over him......
Kathianne
03-10-2009, 07:53 PM
As before, I'll state I believe that evolution is the best theory going today. I think that it's more than obvious the earth and it's creatures are way older than can be 'proven' by the Bible. Of course, I'm not wedded to the Bible in the literal sense that many on this site are. I fervently believe there is God, I believe just as strongly in His Son, Jesus. Likewise in the strength we gain by the Spirit.
It's just that for me, there isn't a dichotomy between my beliefs and evolution. Evolution to me encompasses a plan laid by God, adjusting for changes over time. It doesn't preclude a designer, just doesn't mean it fits within the parameters of the Old Testament, which to me makes sense, as it was mostly prehistory to begin with.
PostmodernProphet
03-10-2009, 07:54 PM
who created science
science is a method, not a thing....you can't pick up science or put it in your pocket
science is a method, not a thing....you can't pick up science or put it in your pocket
what goes into your lungs? can you put that into your pocket?
bigger, outside of, in control of....what difference does it make what label you put on it.....if he is capable of creating a law, he is capable of avoiding it, reverting it, working around it.....however you want to look at it, there is no reason to expect that the law he created has power over him......
i never said the law he created has power over him.
go back and read what i posted.
PostmodernProphet
03-10-2009, 08:03 PM
what goes into your lungs? can you put that into your pocket?
actually air goes into my lungs and my pockets are always full of air and sometimes something else......you can examine it scientifically and identify it's chemical makeup.....it is a very lightweight thing with lots of space in between it and other things, but yes...it's a thing.....
PostmodernProphet
03-10-2009, 08:05 PM
i never said the law he created has power over him.
go back and read what i posted.
you said...."how is god not subject to the laws of nature? "....if you didn't mean that they had power over him what did you mean when you said "subject to"?......
"
you said...."how is god not subject to the laws of nature? "....if you didn't mean that they had power over him what did you mean when you said "subject to"?......
"
dude, res ispa
PostmodernProphet
03-10-2009, 09:32 PM
sorry, never took Latin....
sorry, never took Latin....
if you don't know what that means...you are not a lawyer
Kathianne
03-10-2009, 09:41 PM
sorry, never took Latin....
but you can google:
http://crime.about.com/od/latin/g/res_ipsa.htm
Definition: It goes without saying.
Also Known As: The matter itself speaks.
Examples: The court ruled the facts in the case res ispa loquitur.
moderate democrat
03-10-2009, 10:01 PM
but you can google:
http://crime.about.com/od/latin/g/res_ipsa.htm
what a high quality link....it misspelled "ipsa":poke:
sgtdmski
03-11-2009, 12:56 AM
Isn't genetics a wonderful thing, it has opened a new door in the discussion of evolution. However, knowledge of genetics has also gone to close a door on the discussion as well. Genetics has done a wonderful job and has increased our knowledge regarding microevolution - the change within a species. However, genetics has also gone to help in debunking the major claim of evolution, macro-evolution - the history of life on earth.
Its neither an addition nor a subtraction, but a change in function. A function that allows certain individuals to survive a disease, while others die. Those who die do not pass along the mutation.
You post an example and use it to aid in your argument regarding evolution. But then by this statement you prove you have no knowledge regarding what the mutation you cited has to do with the argument. Great Job. If you are going to use an example, you really should make sure that it goes to prove your point. This example did not. Yes it is a mutation, but what kind of a mutation? In the example cited it was a mutation of a gene at an allele that was caused by thedeletion of two proteins that go to make up the gene. By definition this is a mutation caused by subtraction.
[QUOTE=DannyR;355335]Your whole language of addition/subtraction is wrong. Most mutations CHANGE some small factor of physiology in a way that didn't exist before.
Yes mutations change some factor. How do they do that, either by adding a protein, amino acid or some other building block to change the function of a gene, or they accomplish this by subtracting a protein, amino acid or other building block. In the case you cited, the mutation was caused by a subtraction of two proteins. In the cases studied by science thus far, genetic mutations within genes have been caused by subtracting some building block from a gene. This is true with disease states as well as immunity states.
I never argued that mutations do not change physiolgy. I agrued that mutations go to disprove macroevolution.
Other examples of beneficial human mutations:
Patients with the QQ or H7H7 genotype had a decreased risk of myocardial infarction
Gbeta3-s appears to be associated with enhanced immune cell function in humans.
Ser447-Ter - reduces risk of CAD.
LPL Ser447-Stop mutation has a protective effect against the development of atherosclerosis and subsequent CAD
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
QQ or H7H7 is a result of genetic combining. In order for it to occur both parents have to have the Q or H7 in their gene in which they can then pass to their offspring. If it is missing from either parent or both it will not be passed. This is just an example of heredity theory.
All the other examples you cite once again are mutations that have been caused by missing proteins, or in the cases of the Ser447 missing amino acids within the sequence of protein, again a case of subtraction.
All it takes is for some small change to increase lifespan or the ability of a species to survive where others of its species do not. That is all that it takes for evolution to work.
A great argument for microevolution, so how does it prove macroevolution. See this is the problem with you who cling to evolution as a faith, you lose reason. I am not arguing that evolution does not occur, I wholeheartedly believe in microevolution, however, the existence of change within species does not prove that all life on earth came from a single cell. That is what you evolutionists cannot grasp and that why your arguments have no effect in the greater debate. You can prove microevolution all day long, and no one will argue against that, however, you cannot prove macroevolution. There is not one single example in the history of science that has shown a mutation that has changed one specie into another specie.
And mutations aren't the only method of one's genetics changing. As I posted in a different thread, we get foreign DNA into our bodies all the time. Several virii permanently alter our genome, and that change can be passed along to our children. The "addition" of new code might cause a beneficial physiological reaction later down the road.
Again, a great proof of microevolution. Cite me one example where the introduction of a foreign DNA has changed one specie into a new specie or a different specie altogether. You cannot!!!! Yet another failed example at proving macroevolution.
Humans do what pond-scum did all the time. I've posted several examples of mutations that benefit humanity as a whole. Pond scum did the same thing, with small mutations that increased its chance of survival. Absolutely nothing different.
Again, great proof of microevolution. Show me one case where a human changed into a new specie. Once again you cannot. Once again another failed example of proving macroevolution.
The development of a complex brain is easily understood using such methods plus a few million years of time. Where one nerve ending provides a single cell organism with a benefit, two might do better. Simple mutation might cause that, and I can name a number of such locations that a simple change caused by a mutation could cause duplication of existing features throughout a body. Add time, two becomes a cluster, a cluster becomes a primitive brain, and a complex brain develops as further areas are added. The human brain didn't just develop all at once. Its very clear from the sections of it that certain areas came about later than earlier ones.
Yes the development is easily understood. Now explain how the brain by your explanation, a separate specie joined with the eyes, another separate specie, or the bones, yet another separate specie. Once again you cannot. Marcroevolution has failed utterly in explaining life on this planet. Science has been unable to explain how supposedly no life turned into life, their only explanation has been Darwin and evolution. Yet Darwin and evolution have failed to provide any evidence or missing link. If life came from one being, then in the fossil record their should be a time when only that one being existed. Where is that record, oh that's right it is still missing. If human life came from the same life that created the chimpanzee and the gorilla, where is that one being that spawned the other species, oh that's right its missing. Amazing how all the proof of evolution in the sense of history of life remains missing. What is not missing are periods in the fossil record that show several different species all coexisting.
When it comes right down to it, thus far, all the science has proven just one theory, that of intelligent design, and has failed to prove the other theory, evolution. Science is proven by experiment and observation. The observation that has been proven is that when life is reviewed in the fossil record is that there are several different species in existence. Thus far, science has yet to by experiment create life. Yes it has created amino acids the building blocks, but has not been able to have those amino acids form proteins. Hmmm another failure in the desire to prove the faith of evolution.
Religion is defined in one dictionary as a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
Seems to me that this definition fits dead on for the Theory of Evolution when it seeks to explain life on earth. So well you try to make a good scientific argument, all you have is your faith that evolution is correct, no proof.
dmk
sgtdmski
03-11-2009, 01:41 AM
These debates coupd go on forever, Really neither site has much going for it;
Christainity; the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathicly tell him that he is your master, so he can remove an evil force that is in every human because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree..
Or...
Atheism; the belief that there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, and then one day nothing magicly exploded and created everything, then everything formed together for no reason and created dinosaurs...
...take your pick...
Yes, take your pick, living life with the knowledge and understanding that when you finally pass from this existence there lies another existence, one that never ends where you will and can be reunited with other loves and friends from your life.
Or, living your life with the knowledge and understanding that when you pass from this existence there lies your further existence as nothing more than worm and bug food.
Perhaps that explains why those who believe in Christ can live a happy and fulfilling life. Not having to abandon their principles and trying to live all out and to have as much fun as possible without responsibility. Sex, drugs, alcohol, living life to abandon. Whereas those who believe can make choices and judgments based upon their principles, delaying sex, not using drugs or alcohol, or using in moderation. Living their life as it has meaning and that meaning determines what happens after that life ends.
dmk
sgtdmski
03-11-2009, 01:48 AM
Yes, I happily admit areas where science doesn't yet have an answer. That is what scientists do... they push the boundaries.
We don't wave the problem away as already solved by filling in the unknowns with "God did it!"
No, instead you say God does not exist, therefore that cannot be the answer and the only answer that remains is Darwin and evolution, therefore although we cannot prove it, IT must be.
Particles pop into and out of existence out of nothing all around us all the time btw.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea
Sorry once again your understand of the scientific principle you use to try to prove something from nothing is absurdly wrong. The virtual particle in the article exist, they spend time as part of other particles and then can spend time as their own particle. They do not come from nothing, they are either there separately or they were there as their own particle. So once again you have failed to understand the science you try to use to prove evolution.
dmk
Yes, take your pick, living life with the knowledge and understanding that when you finally pass from this existence there lies another existence, one that never ends where you will and can be reunited with other loves and friends from your life.
Or, living your life with the knowledge and understanding that when you pass from this existence there lies your further existence as nothing more than worm and bug food.
Perhaps that explains why those who believe in Christ can live a happy and fulfilling life. Not having to abandon their principles and trying to live all out and to have as much fun as possible without responsibility. Sex, drugs, alcohol, living life to abandon. Whereas those who believe can make choices and judgments based upon their principles, delaying sex, not using drugs or alcohol, or using in moderation. Living their life as it has meaning and that meaning determines what happens after that life ends.
dmk
Lololololololol I think you're living in a bit of a dream land mate, why don't you go to your local college this weekend and see how many of them steer clear of drugs and sex ect,
You also seem to have decided in this mess of sterotyped tosh that as I am not a believer in Christ then I ofcourse live an immoral life with no princibles, even when I don't drink, take drugs and keep sex to a minimum. Infact i often have a quiet laugh to myself when I see what my peers who live a 'moral' life get up too.
I also find that some Christians use their beliefs as a moral 'get out of jail card' I knew one guy who came from a pretty well of christain family, he was caught stealing over £6000 from his work (he later said it was to help pay with his university costs) after being caught he said that God had forgiven him and that God was in the court room with him ect ect, such a perversion made mr feel disgusted if I'm honest,
Missileman
03-11-2009, 06:13 AM
Isn't genetics a wonderful thing, it has opened a new door in the discussion of evolution. However, knowledge of genetics has also gone to close a door on the discussion as well. Genetics has done a wonderful job and has increased our knowledge regarding microevolution - the change within a species. However, genetics has also gone to help in debunking the major claim of evolution, macro-evolution - the history of life on earth.
Really? I must have missed the headlines in the science journals...got a link that our new understanding of genetics disproves the theory of evolution?
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 06:31 AM
if you don't know what that means...you are not a lawyer
bullshit....
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 06:34 AM
dude, res ispa
then your post is nonsensical.....it does not "go without saying" that God is subject to the laws of nature.....if anything, it goes without saying, that he is NOT.....
moderate democrat
03-11-2009, 06:38 AM
then your post is nonsensical.....it does not "go without saying" that God is subject to the laws of nature.....if anything, it goes without saying, that he is NOT.....
I agree completely. tossing out a fancy - albeit misspelled - Latin legal phrase that does NOT prove one's point is moronic.
DannyR
03-11-2009, 11:06 AM
Yes it is a mutation, but what kind of a mutation?It doesn't matter what kind of mutation. Its a mutation that allows some part of the species to survive, while others do not, thus passing it along.
A great argument for microevolution, so how does it prove macroevolution.microevolution is all that is needed for macroevolution! The proof of which is evident in the fossil record and corroborated entirely by genetics.
There is not one single example in the history of science that has shown a mutation that has changed one specie into another specie.
One mutation doesn't change a species! Strawman argument. It takes many many such mutations, and an extremely long amount of time.
Cite me one example where the introduction of a foreign DNA has changed one specie into a new specie or a different specie altogether.You cannot!!!! See above. Evolution never says that a single mutation causes complete species change. Again, it takes many such mutations, and a long span of time.
Show me one case where a human changed into a new specieFossil record is pretty strong in showing how humans evolved from one species into another.
Now explain how the brain by your explanation, a separate specie joined with the eyes, another separate specie, or the bones, yet another separate specie. Once again you cannot. Development of eyes/bones/other organs is well explained by most evolution texts. Darwin even gave a rather good explanation himself about the eye. Evolution 101. I'll not repeat it here. None of such organs are "irreducibly complex" as IDers would have you believe.
Science has been unable to explain how supposedly no life turned into life, their only explanation has been Darwin and evolution.Not the only explanation, just the one that has yet to be disproved.
Yet Darwin and evolution have failed to provide any evidence or missing link. If life came from one being, then in the fossil record their should be a time when only that one being existed. Where is that record, oh that's right it is still missing.Just because its not seen in a fossil record doesn't mean the existence of that life can't be inferred through numerous other disciplines. If anything, the advent of genetics has proven evolution better than any discipline before. One can trace the history of mutations and compare the DNA between species, finding the similarities one would expect based on the fossil record.
If human life came from the same life that created the chimpanzee and the gorilla, where is that one being that spawned the other species, oh that's right its missing.The majority of species are not present in the fossil record. There are far more dinosaurs we know nothing about than we find fossils of. That doesn't mean they didn't exist. And there are in fact a number of hominid fossils out there that predate modern chimp/ape/humans split.
What is not missing are periods in the fossil record that show several different species all coexisting.
You know what is absolutely missing from the fossil record? Any possibility that every species ever existed all at the same time. If macroevolution didn't exist, we should expect to find dinosaurs with humans, greater mammals coexisting at the same time as other prehistoric species. But there is a clear order in the geologic record that some species existed BEFORE others.
Thus far, science has yet to by experiment create life. Yes it has created amino acids the building blocks, but has not been able to have those amino acids form proteins.Sorry, wrong. Chalk another example of something IDers thought only God could do which it turns out science is perfectly capable of. Again, proof ID is a sloppy argument and a kludge. IDer's said this would never happen and if we took their advice, it might not have.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-05/asu-anw051807.php
Using new tricks of molecular biology, Chaput and co-workers have evolved several new proteins in a fraction of the 3 billion years it took nature.
No, instead you say God does not exist, therefore that cannot be the answer and the only answer that remains is Darwin and evolution, therefore although we cannot prove it, IT must be.The lack of evidence is what says God doesn't exist. Science is more than welcome to recognize a God's existence if just one shred of proof were ever provided. Evolution however remains the BEST answer we have to how live originated, and as yet has never been proven wrong.
moderate democrat
03-11-2009, 11:48 AM
"you must spread some reputation around before giving it to DannyR again"
well DONE!!!
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 12:36 PM
One mutation doesn't change a species! Strawman argument. It takes many many such mutations, and an extremely long amount of time.
.
or one intelligently designed and caused change in a single generation.....
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 12:38 PM
Not the only explanation, just the one that has yet to be disproved.
???.....Darwin and the theory of evolution make no effort at all to explain the origin of life....
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 12:41 PM
You know what is absolutely missing from the fossil record? Any possibility that every species ever existed all at the same time. If macroevolution didn't exist, we should expect to find dinosaurs with humans, greater mammals coexisting at the same time as other prehistoric species. But there is a clear order in the geologic record that some species existed BEFORE others.
.
/shrugs....there is no reason whatsoever to expect coexistence....
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 12:45 PM
IDer's said this would never happen and if we took their advice, it might not have.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-05/asu-anw051807.php
what a crock.....they alter an already living thing and claim it is a step forward in creating a living thing......that would be like me buying a car and then claiming that because I bought a car, I invented them.....
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 12:48 PM
Evolution however remains the BEST answer we have to how live originated, and as yet has never been proven wrong.
I'm sorry, but this is the height of ignorance......evolution isn't the "best" answer to origin of life.....it isn't even an attempt to answer origin of life....evolution explains the change from one generation of organisms to another......it isn't even relevant when there is no organism to change from......abiogenesis isn't evolution.....if you don't know the difference, don't engage in the debate......
DannyR
03-11-2009, 02:58 PM
what a crock.....they alter an already living thing and claim it is a step forward in creating a living thing......that would be like me buying a car and then claiming that because I bought a car, I invented them.....FYI, we can build amino acids molecule by molecule now as well, so its not like we had to use already existing building blocks first.
And its more like buying a bunch of parts for a car, and creating a brand new never before seen vehicle. Sure there are other cars, but nothing like what you had before.
Darwin and the theory of evolution make no effort at all to explain the origin of life.
...
abiogenesis isn't evolution
Sorry, you are correct there. I was using the term evolution broadly since this has primarily been a science vs magic debate and we've tossed in some astronomy as well, which also isn't evolution. Yes, abiogenesis is the more appropriate term, although it is considered a subset of evolution by many since the same principles apply. Formation of pre-life complex chemicals vs basic chemicals has many of the same rules as evolution, with self replicating molecules for instance being created much faster than those that can't self-replicate.
here is no reason whatsoever to expect coexistenceOh, thats right, when your explanation pretty much amounts to magic or God did it, you can wave any inconsistency away.
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 04:01 PM
FYI, we can build amino acids molecule by molecule now as well, so its not like we had to use already existing building blocks first.
tell you what....you give me a call when you make a live thing out of a dead thing......
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 04:03 PM
And its more like buying a bunch of parts for a car, and creating a brand new never before seen vehicle. Sure there are other cars, but nothing like what you had before.
only if you acknowledge you are incapable of building a car that runs......
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 04:06 PM
although it is considered a subset of evolution by many since the same principles apply.
???...uh, no they don't....none of the same principles apply.....mutated offspring of a living creature surviving changing environmental conditions.....versus.....no living creature, no offspring, no survival.....so where are your shared principles?.......
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 04:07 PM
Oh, thats right, when your explanation pretty much amounts to magic or God did it, you can wave any inconsistency away.
/shrugs....you're the one making up inconsistencies....I see nothing in intelligent design that implies humans and dinosaurs need to coexist......
DannyR
03-11-2009, 07:31 PM
???...uh, no they don't....none of the same principles apply.....mutated offspring of a living creature surviving changing environmental conditions.....versus.....no living creature, no offspring, no survival.....so where are your shared principles?.......Part of the early stages of life must involve chemicals bonding into molecules that are able to either self replicate or replicate other molecules nearby. In effect, yes they have "offspring".
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html
Once a molecule is able to start making duplicates of it, even though its not life, the basics of evolutionary theory begin to apply. Small changes that occur can make the molecule more or less likely to "reproduce" and survive.
Note that replicating molecules can be VERY simple. This isn't life we have yet, but it is certainly a step on the road to life, and thus under the auspices of evolution at large.
DannyR
03-11-2009, 07:36 PM
tell you what....you give me a call when you make a live thing out of a dead thing......Scientists have already created a man made virus out of just molecular building blocks. A virus is certainly alive at periods during its activity, having the ability to create offspring and procreate itself.
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 08:31 PM
Note that replicating molecules can be VERY simple. This isn't life we have yet, but it is certainly a step on the road to life, and thus under the auspices of evolution at large.
lol......pure unadulterated bullshit.....as can be seen from your quote "This isn't life".....it isn't under the "auspices" of anything except your vivid imagination.....
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 08:33 PM
Scientists have already created a man made virus out of just molecular building blocks. A virus is certainly alive at periods during its activity, having the ability to create offspring and procreate itself.
???....viruses do not procreate, they do not have offspring, and they are not "life".....they are an organic chemical reaction......they alter an already living cell.....
Viruses are not considered free-living, since they cannot reproduce outside of a living cell
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575740/Virus_(life_science).html
5stringJeff
03-11-2009, 08:37 PM
how is god not subject to his own laws? you seem to be saying that god is bigger than his own laws, hence, above them. is that what you are saying?
If God created nature, then there was a time when there was no nature. At that time, God could not have been subject to the laws of nature, because nature did not yet exist. And, since God is eternal and unchanging, it would not be possible for God to have not been subject to nature at one point and then subject to nature at a different point. Therefore, God is not subject to the laws of nature.
who created science
God.
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 08:40 PM
Note that replicating molecules can be VERY simple. This isn't life we have yet, but it is certainly a step on the road to life, and thus under the auspices of evolution at large.
mining iron ore can be very simple.....it isn't an automobile yet but it is certainly on the road to driving.....it is under the "auspices" of car manufacturing.......
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 08:46 PM
logic is a mean bastard.....
/boggle....this is a response to Yurt in #88
DannyR
03-11-2009, 08:46 PM
???....viruses do not procreate, they do not have offspring, and they are not "life".....they are an organic chemical reaction......they alter an already living cell.Nobody said they were alive. But they aren't exactly dead either. They are a half-way point having properties of both. And your idea they don't have offspring is entirely wrong. The whole makeup of most virii is to produce thousands of copies of itself. How is that any different than a single cell organism that likewise duplicates and makes a copy? And mutations and errors in this process produce new virii capable of acting in different ways. This is an evolutionary process we see all the time!
mining iron ore can be very simple.....it isn't an automobile yet but it is certainly on the road to drivinglet me know when the ore mines itself.
as can be seen from your quote "This isn't life".....it isn't under the "auspices" of anything except your vivid imaginationNobody said it was life. It is however a step on the road to life, and many of the rules of evolution apply, despite your denials. A change in a molecule can result in the molecule being more likely to replicate, thus insuring there are more of it. Thats the most basic of evolutionary principles.
If God created nature, then there was a time when there was no nature. At that time, God could not have been subject to the laws of nature, because nature did not yet exist. And, since God is eternal and unchanging, it would not be possible for God to have not been subject to nature at one point and then subject to nature at a different point. Therefore, God is not subject to the laws of nature.
God.
hadn't thought of it that way
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 08:55 PM
Nobody said they were alive.
refresh my memory....which of us typed "a virus is certainly alive"......oh, I recall now, it was you....
and many of the rules of evolution apply, despite your denials. A change in a molecule can result in the molecule being more likely to replicate, thus insuring there are more of it. Thats the most basic of evolutionary principles.
time for you to restudy Darwin......evolution has nothing to do with the existence of organic chemistry, pre-life......
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 08:57 PM
let me know when the ore mines itself.
will do.....but of course, when it does, it STILL won't be car manufacturing.....
DannyR
03-11-2009, 09:12 PM
refresh my memory....which of us typed "a virus is certainly alive"......oh, I recall now, it was you....That was only PART of my quote. The whole statement was "A virus is certainly alive at periods during its activity" And I've further gone on to say that virii show characteristics of both life and unlife. I never said it was ALWAYS alive.
http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/yellowstone/viruslive.html
"Viruses exist in two distinct states. When not in contact with a host cell, the virus remains entirely dormant. During this time there are no internal biological activities occurring within the virus, and in essence the virus is no more than a static organic particle. In this simple, clearly non-living state viruses are referred to as 'virions'. Virions can remain in this dormant state for extended periods of time, waiting patiently to come into contact with the appropriate host. When the virion comes into contact with the appropriate host, it becomes active and is then referred to as a virus. It now displays properties typified by living organisms, such as reacting to its environment and directing its efforts toward self-replication". From The Bacteriophage T4 Virus
time for you to restudy Darwin......evolution has nothing to do with the existence of organic chemistry, pre-life......And you need to keep rereading what I wrote. The processes used in evolution can apply to organic chemistry, pre-life. The two are strongly related, which is why they always come up in such discussions together. Trying to find a good link, but I'm certainly not alone in this opinion. Several well known scientists (PZ Myers, Univ. Minn) have defined abiogenesis as "the study of chemical evolution, and is a natural subset of evolutionary theory"
Mr. P
03-11-2009, 10:26 PM
Let me see.."Live" virus, "Dead" virus..Most vaccines used are made with..."dead"....right?.....hummm
Point is, you can't have a dead virus if it was never alive.
DannyR
03-11-2009, 10:31 PM
will do.....but of course, when it does, it STILL won't be car manufacturing.....Just curious, but if scientists do create a unique, never before seen lifeform (not just the proteins we see now) from scratch during our lifetimes (and its a certainty in my mind that we will see this), what will happen to your faith?
Mr. P
03-11-2009, 10:36 PM
Just curious, but if scientists do create a unique, never before seen lifeform (not just the proteins we see now) from scratch during our lifetimes (and its a certainty in my mind that we will see this), what will happen to your faith?
The Earth IS FLAT, ya know!
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 10:41 PM
That was only PART of my quote. The whole statement was "A virus is certainly alive at periods during its activity" And I've further gone on to say that virii show characteristics of both life and unlife. I never said it was ALWAYS alive.
well there's screw up number 2, because it is NEVER alive.....it alters the host cell, which is a living thing.....the virus is not the host cell, the virus is not the altered host cell.....the virus is the thing which alters the host cell.....
Several well known scientists (PZ Myers, Univ. Minn) have defined abiogenesis as "the study of chemical evolution, and is a natural subset of evolutionary theory"
then like you, they are trying to alter the meaning of evolution to attempt to legitimize abiogenesis as science.....a facade, of course.....
In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection. Genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. These traits vary within populations, with organisms showing heritable differences in their traits. When organisms reproduce, their offspring may have new or altered traits. These new traits arise in two main ways: either from mutations in genes, or from the transfer of genes between populations and between species. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are also produced by genetic recombination, which can increase variation between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 10:46 PM
Let me see.."Live" virus, "Dead" virus..Most vaccines used are made with..."dead"....right?.....hummm
Point is, you can't have a dead virus if it was never alive.
since the "live" is a misnomer, then I expect the "dead" is as well.....
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 10:51 PM
Just curious, but if scientists do create a unique, never before seen lifeform (not just the proteins we see now) from scratch during our lifetimes (and its a certainty in my mind that we will see this), what will happen to your faith?
from scratch?......it would cause me a great puzzlement.....however, we also know that you will go to your grave expecting that science will accomplish that miracle at any moment....despite the fact that no-one has ever proposed an experiment that would result in that happening, or even has the slightest idea how to go about framing such an experiment.....
tell me, why aren't scientists ramming huge charges of electricity into primordial sludges in an effort to create life?....they tried it back in the 60s if I recall, and all they got out of it was some organic chemicals.....no life.....
I would normally expect the secular scientific community to be all over itself trying to prove something which would shake up the religious world......what gives?......
PostmodernProphet
03-11-2009, 10:52 PM
The Earth IS FLAT, ya know!
so'z yer forehead, you Neanderthal throwback.....:poke:
Mr. P
03-11-2009, 11:05 PM
since the "live" is a misnomer, then I expect the "dead" is as well.....
Well, convince yer self then...I'll point you to YOUR very own post...
In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection. Genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. These traits vary within populations, with organisms showing heritable differences in their traits. When organisms reproduce, their offspring may have new or altered traits. These new traits arise in two main ways: either from mutations in genes, or from the transfer of genes between populations and between species. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are also produced by genetic recombination, which can increase variation between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population.
Now splain how a virus that isn't alive can develop a resistance or immunity to a drug or environmental changes. Evolution? YEP.
DannyR
03-11-2009, 11:13 PM
despite the fact that no-one has ever proposed an experiment that would result in that happening, or even has the slightest idea how to go about framing such an experimentWrong on both counts. First stages have already happened in experiments such as done here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/science/24cnd-genome.html
tell me, why aren't scientists ramming huge charges of electricity into primordial sludges in an effort to create life?Believe it or not, but nobody thinks life originated from some Frankenstein scene where lightning strikes the previously dead organism and turns it into life. The experiment in question did exactly what it was proposed it would do... simulate primitive environement and basic elements and prove that the building blocks of life would result. Until that experiment, you creationists were saying organic molecules couldn't naturally occur. Another pooof foiled by science looking where the religious folk feared to tread.
tell me, why aren't scientists ramming huge charges of electricity into primordial sludges in an effort to create life?....they tried it back in the 60s if I recall, and all they got out of it was some organic chemicals.....no life.....
Even if they did (and they have tried this before about 50yrs ago)... even if they did, it'd be under a control environment not chaos and that'd still present problems for the Godless...er.. I mean those who believe in Evolution... :P
sgtdmski
03-12-2009, 12:47 AM
It doesn't matter what kind of mutation. Its a mutation that allows some part of the species to survive, while others do not, thus passing it along.
You are using mutations to prove macro-evolution, yet every example you have cited has been a mutation of either substitution in the form of foreign DNA or subtraction, the missing of a protein or proteins or the missing of an amino acid or amino acids. For macro-evolution to occur, you need to show an example of addition, where a once cell organism, which is how life began in that primordial mass, is suddenly changed into a two-cell organism, then to a multi-cell organism. Thus far you have done a wonderful job or proving micro-evolution, yet have done nothing to scientifically show that macro-evolution has occured. ALL YOUR EXAMPLES HAVE BEEN OF MUTATION CAUSED BY SUBTRACTION. It does matter what kind of mutation. Quite relying on your faith and prove it.
microevolution is all that is needed for macroevolution! The proof of which is evident in the fossil record and corroborated entirely by genetics.
No micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution. Micro-evolution proves that there are changes that are beneficial to the species over time, it does not prove that changes over time change one species into another species.
One mutation doesn't change a species! Strawman argument. It takes many many such mutations, and an extremely long amount of time.
Great, I agree, yet you have failed to show one example of a mutation that was caused by an addition. Or are we to believe that the first single cell life on this planet was so complex that it dwarfs human life????
See above. Evolution never says that a single mutation causes complete species change. Again, it takes many such mutations, and a long span of time.
Again, you have failed to provide specific proof. We are still waiting for the missing links. At some time in the fossil record there must exist a period where there is only one specie, which evolved into different species thus creating all life on earth. That is the claim of Darwin and the Origin of the Species. So where is it? Show us!!!! Prove its existence, if you cannot you remain faithful to its existence. You are still committed to your religion of Darwin.
Fossil record is pretty strong in showing how humans evolved from one species into another.
Fossil records are pretty strong in showing how the human species has evolved, it has yet to show how one specie turned into the human species.
Development of eyes/bones/other organs is well explained by most evolution texts. Darwin even gave a rather good explanation himself about the eye. Evolution 101. I'll not repeat it here. None of such organs are "irreducibly complex" as IDers would have you believe.
Yet nonetheless, we are to believe that from a one-cell organism, these many celled creatures developed. Without an example of a mutation by addition, that cannot be shown.
Not the only explanation, just the one that has yet to be disproved.
You are right it has yet to be disproved and without the so-called missing links, it has yet to been proved. Except for micro-evolution, evolution as an explanation as to the origin of the species remains a theory, neither proven nor disproven, much the same as the creation story.
Just because its not seen in a fossil record doesn't mean the existence of that life can't be inferred through numerous other disciplines. If anything, the advent of genetics has proven evolution better than any discipline before. One can trace the history of mutations and compare the DNA between species, finding the similarities one would expect based on the fossil record.
Sorry science is proven through the use of observation or experiment. No observation and no experiment no proof. Genetics has proven micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. No one cannot trace the history of mutations and compare the DNA between species. Unfortunately most of all DNA for animals and plants on this planet is alike. GASP that should prove evolution, unfortunately it does not, all it proves is that life on this planet uses the same building blocks. We are all carbon based creatures and as a result we will use the same proteins, amino acids and other elements that are on this planet.
The majority of species are not present in the fossil record. There are far more dinosaurs we know nothing about than we find fossils of. That doesn't mean they didn't exist. And there are in fact a number of hominid fossils out there that predate modern chimp/ape/humans split.
Yes there are but they have yet to be shown to relate to one of the hominids families, meaning that they could be a separate species altogether who through descent of the species went extinct because they were unsuited for life on this planet. Nice try, but no missing link. How many species have gone extinct?
You know what is absolutely missing from the fossil record? Any possibility that every species ever existed all at the same time. If macroevolution didn't exist, we should expect to find dinosaurs with humans, greater mammals coexisting at the same time as other prehistoric species. But there is a clear order in the geologic record that some species existed BEFORE others.
Again you are right, but if you cannot prove a link between species that existed, with species that exist, you cannot prove evolution. And thank you for pointing out the dinosaurs, something caused them to go extinct, what is it that science claims, oh thats right a massive meteor or asteroid strike that caused the atmosphere to fill with dust particles causing the planet to go into an ice age, and ending most of the life on the planet.
GASP your window for evolution has now shrunk even more. No longer are the billion years, but rather only millions of years. Your time theory is rapidly shrinking.
Sorry, wrong. Chalk another example of something IDers thought only God could do which it turns out science is perfectly capable of. Again, proof ID is a sloppy argument and a kludge. IDer's said this would never happen and if we took their advice, it might not have.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-05/asu-anw051807.php[/quote]
Oh but wait, did you read, when they couldn't get it to work at first what did the do??? GASP they changed the starting conditions adding more elements to better help the stability of the protein. GASP they just proved intelligent design, not evolution. Thanks for the scientific proof. Great job!!!!!
[CENTER]:dance:[/CENTER
The lack of evidence is what says God doesn't exist. Science is more than welcome to recognize a God's existence if just one shred of proof were ever provided. Evolution however remains the BEST answer we have to how live originated, and as yet has never been proven wrong.
Remains the best answer again with out any evidence as you yourself have now proven. Hang on to your religion of evolution.
dmk
Kathianne
03-12-2009, 05:23 AM
Rep to the above two posters, who strongly disagree with each other, yet remain civil throughout their discussion. :clap::clap:
PostmodernProphet
03-12-2009, 07:07 AM
Wrong on both counts. First stages have already happened in experiments such as done here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/science/24cnd-genome.html
not even close....from your links....
Moreover, Dr. Venter’s team, led by a Nobel laureate, Hamilton Smith, has so far failed to accomplish the next —and biggest — step. That would be to insert the synthetic chromosome into a living microbe and have it “boot up” and take control of the organism’s functioning.
their "biggest step" isn't to create life, it's to transform something already alive.....they aren't even conceiving the difficult task of making something that isn't alive, alive.....
PostmodernProphet
03-12-2009, 07:09 AM
Until that experiment, you creationists were saying organic molecules couldn't naturally occur. Another pooof foiled by science looking where the religious folk feared to tread.
odd, I've never heard any Christian chemist argue that organic chemistry was "impossible".....got some sources?.....
PostmodernProphet
03-12-2009, 07:12 AM
Quite relying on your faith and prove it.
I would be content if they just acknowledged they operated on faith.....
PostmodernProphet
03-12-2009, 07:13 AM
Well, convince yer self then...I'll point you to YOUR very own post...
Now splain how a virus that isn't alive can develop a resistance or immunity to a drug or environmental changes. Evolution? YEP.
no reproduction, no offspring, no evolution.......
a virus alters a host cell, which in turn produces more of the organic chemicals which form the virus.....if penicillin or the host creature's antibodies do not kill the altered host cell it keeps on producing those chemicals which spread to other hosts and alter their host cells......the only life involved is that stolen from the host.....
DannyR
03-12-2009, 11:15 AM
For macro-evolution to occur, you need to show an example of addition, where a once cell organism, which is how life began in that primordial mass, is suddenly changed into a two-cell organism, then to a multi-cell organism.Here's an explanation of how single cellular life evolved into multicellular life:
http://evolutionofcomputing.org/Multicellular/EvolutionOfMulticellularity.html
There are also numerous other methods for genomes to increase in complexity, to name a few:
Alternative splicing, RNA editing (Athanasiadis et al. 2004;
Blow et al. 2004), trans-splicing (Takahara et al. 2005), alternative
transcription start sites (Hashimoto et al. 2004), and alternative
polyadenylation transcription termination sites (Beaudoing and
Gautheret 2001) and Transcription Induced Chimera (Parra, Reymond, & Dabbouseh 2006).
I still don't buy your language of "addition/subtraction", but there are numerous methods the genes we have can double.
To show an example you might recognize, we have people with XXY genes being born from time to time. Such mutations usually don't go well for the individual, but this is not always true. Occassionally some double linked strand of DNA proves useful, and is kept in future generations.
But you seem to be saying if we didn't observe it over millions of years in an actual lab setting it couldn't have happened. Not everything in science has to be directly observed. We can tell many things exist by the impact they have left all around them.
Micro-evolution proves that there are changes that are beneficial to the species over time, it does not prove that changes over time change one species into another species.
But it does. Keep adding in those small changes, and eventually DNA has changed enough that the descendants of one branch are no longer close to that of another. Its simple math. You can't keep adding changes and expect it to remain the same.
And we've seen speciation in the real time we've been around to observe nature.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
Just curious, but do you know anything about the development of a dog from a wolf? In just an EXTREMELY short period of time (in the grand scheme of things), humans have taken the raw material found in a wolf (Canis lupus), domesticated it, and turned it into a couple hundred different breeds of dog (Canis familiaris), many of which look absolutely nothing like each other. It always astonishes me that if such a wide change can be done in such a short time, why do you have such a problem with the idea that greater changes can take place in timeframes thousands of times longer?
Or are we to believe that the first single cell life on this planet was so complex that it dwarfs human life????No idea what you are asking here. First single cell life was very likely simply a replicating molecule that had the bad luck of being surrounded by a couple of molecules of something else to form a protective wall. Hardly anything as complicated as human life.
At some time in the fossil record there must exist a period where there is only one specie, which evolved into different species thus creating all life on earthThe fossil record doesn't record everything, and certainly aquatic based animals are even rarer finds. Most things that go into the ground rot away and are recycled. But we certainly do have proof only plantlife once existed on the earth. Fossilized plants that predate animal existence on land have been found.
Show us!!!! Prove its existence, if you cannot you remain faithful to its existence. You are still committed to your religion of Darwin.And I believe in gravitons, and electrons, and other things I can't see, because I can infer their existence from other data available. I don't need to spend a few million years doing a test to know something is true.
The genetic code of animals shows a pretty clear progression of how animals have evolved.
The geologic record agrees with this, and the dates of match!
Sorry science is proven through the use of observation or experiment. No observation and no experiment no proof. Genetics has proven micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Science requires that observations can be replicated. The observations on which evolution is based, including comparative anatomy, genetics, and fossils, are replicable.
Repeatable experiments, including experiments about mutations and natural selection in the laboratory and in the field, also support evolution.
More info on how evolution is testable:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
No one cannot trace the history of mutations and compare the DNA between species. They can't? This would surprise a lot of scientists who work with DNA on a daily basis and are doing just that, including myself. The example above about the HIV resistance mutation was DATED to the middle ages. It didn't exist before then. And we compare DNA between species all the time. Its one of the basics of modern genetic research.
Unfortunately most of all DNA for animals and plants on this planet is alike. GASP that should prove evolution, unfortunately it does not, all it proves is that life on this planet uses the same building blocks.And yet the differences (which despite similarities are still substantial enough to measure), correspond exactly with theories supporting evolution, allowing one to measure differences and determine that animals with an expected divergence have just that matched in their DNA.
Yes there are but they have yet to be shown to relate to one of the hominids families, meaning that they could be a separate species altogether who through descent of the species went extinct because they were unsuited for life on this planet.Interesting how these earlier hominids existed at a time when humans did not, and they began to disappear from the fossil record as more modern humans and hominids appeared. They didn't just go extinct, they CHANGED.
Again you are right, but if you cannot prove a link between species that existed, with species that exist, you cannot prove evolution.Good thing we compare such things all the time. Fossil record has numerous chains of species evolving into other species for which the relationship is clear.
GASP your window for evolution has now shrunk even more. No longer are the billion years, but rather only millions of years. Your time theory is rapidly shrinking.Um, no... because the death of the dinosaurs cleared the way for mammals rise. And the hard work had already been done at that point. Millions of years is still plenty of time. Nobody has said EVERY bit of life disappeared when they vanished. Perhaps if they hadn't vanished, you and I would look like sleestaks or Visitors.
GASP they changed the starting conditions adding more elements to better help the stability of the protein. GASP they just proved intelligent design, not evolution. Thanks for the scientific proof. Great job!!!!!Um, hate to break it to you, but nobody says things can't be designed. We design things every day when we build a new car/computer. The problem you IDers have is that you see a designer even when one isn't necessary. Thats sloppy science and the same sort of reason people think there is a face on Mars or Atlantis was discovered based on seemingly straight rock edges found underwater.
In any case, the point raised above was that life itself couldn't be designed by HUMANS. That we can't create something better than ourselves. The first steps to prove that wrong are underway.
I would be content if they just acknowledged they operated on faithFaith implies something can't be proven and must be taken without any support at all. Given all the data, evolution has no need of faith.
odd, I've never heard any Christian chemist argue that organic chemistry was "impossible".....got some sources?.....Note, I didn't say organic chemistry was impossible. I said there were claims that complex organic molecules couldn't happen. I don't think a chemist would make that mistake. But other Creationists have. Like most religions, some of you believe more than others in what science can do.
A couple links of claims that organic molecules wouldn't form, or would be destroyed quickly right after forming:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB030.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB030_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html
PostmodernProphet
03-12-2009, 12:29 PM
Faith implies something can't be proven and must be taken without any support at all. Given all the data, evolution has no need of faith.
I'm sorry, but there is no more proof for macro-evolution than there is for creation.....there is only your beliefs.....you take a fossil of a creature that lived eons ago and propose it is related to a creature that lived eons later......you claim it evolved from it......I look at two different creatures and conclude that a god created them both......neither of our beliefs can be proven.....
Note, I didn't say organic chemistry was impossible. I said there were claims that complex organic molecules couldn't happen. I don't think a chemist would make that mistake. But other Creationists have. Like most religions, some of you believe more than others in what science can do.
I suppose that's fair.....Christians ignorant of chemistry might have made that mistake, just as seculars ignorant of biology make mistakes comparing evolution to abiogenesis......
DannyR
03-12-2009, 01:11 PM
I'm sorry, but there is no more proof for macro-evolution than there is for creation.....there is only your beliefs.....you take a fossil of a creature that lived eons ago and propose it is related to a creature that lived eons later......you claim it evolved from it......I look at two different creatures and conclude that a god created them both......neither of our beliefs can be proven.But what evidence at all exists to support your claim? Nothing. There are numerous other aspects beside the fossil record that support evolution.
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
just as seculars ignorant of biology make mistakes comparing evolution to abiogenesis......Are you saying you can't compare them at all? That there is no similarity in the process at any level? That is the mistake.
Again, I'm hardly the only one commenting about the similarities:
http://www.scientificblogging.com/genomicron/blog/abiogenesis_vs_evolution
Early replicators, once they arise, would undergo evolution. Mutation, natural selection, etc., would have been important before cellular life as we understand it appeared. However, there are components to the issue that predate the occurrence of natural selection, which are more properly understood in terms of organic chemistry than biology. The line is not sharp, though, so keeping evolution out of abiogenesis research is unwise.
Whether "cells" (membranes with stuff inside) or replicator molecules (e.g., RNA) appeared first, if there was heritable variation and reproduction and survival that differed among them, then selection would have happened.And the writer in that case does go on to note that he sees no problem keeping the two fields separate. That however doesn't mean they are not related, anymore than any other two fields of science can have separate aspects but still share many common aspects.
DannyR
03-12-2009, 02:07 PM
Darn it... problem with long posts is I get lost in them. I meant to add this to my long reply a few posts up in the following section:
No one cannot trace the history of mutations and compare the DNA between species.
They can't? This would surprise a lot of scientists who work with DNA on a daily basis and are doing just that, including myself. The example above about the HIV resistance mutation was DATED to the middle ages. It didn't exist before then. And we compare DNA between species all the time. Its one of the basics of modern genetic research.
I meant to finish that bit with the proof:
Comparing DNA is a very valuable too we use all the time today to determine how new species should be classified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_systematics
Every living organism contains DNA, RNA, and proteins. Closely related organisms generally have a high degree of agreement in the molecular structure of these substances, while the molecules of organisms distantly related usually show a pattern of dissimilarity. Molecular phylogeny uses such data to build a "relationship tree" that shows the probable evolution of various organisms. Not until recent decades, however, has it been possible to isolate and identify these molecular structures.
The effect on traditional biological classification schemes in the biological sciences has been dramatic as well. Work that was once immensely labor- and materials-intensive can now be done quickly and easily, leading to yet another source of information becoming available for systematic and taxonomic appraisal. This particular kind of data has become so popular that taxonomical schemes based solely on molecular data may be encountered.
PostmodernProphet
03-12-2009, 02:37 PM
There are numerous other aspects beside the fossil record that support evolution.
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
I'm sorry, but there simply isn't....for example, your "gems" claims evidence that whales evolved from a land based animal....however, the only evidence available is that there was a land based animal that had some similar characteristics to whales.....that is not evidence of transition.....it could be considered "evidence" of equal weight that a god created both animals....all it really "proves" is that both animals existed....
PostmodernProphet
03-12-2009, 02:39 PM
Are you saying you can't compare them at all? That there is no similarity in the process at any level?
yes I am....evolution involves the passing of traits on from one generation to the next.....organic chemistry simply doesn't.....
note, from your link....
Whether "cells" (membranes with stuff inside) or replicator molecules (e.g., RNA) appeared first, if there was heritable variation and reproduction and survival that differed among them, then selection would have happened.
quite simply, there ISN"T heritable variation and reproduction.....case closed.....
DannyR
03-12-2009, 02:51 PM
quite simply, there ISN"T heritable variation and reproduction.....case closed.....Um, wrong. A change in a replicating molecule will be replicated in all its future descendants. This has been proven in labs with artificial molecules.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html
and
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/replicatingrna.html
But it wasn't just a bunch of scientist-designed enzymes competing, like a miniature molecular BattleBots sequence. As soon as the replicators got into the broth, they began to change.
"Most of the time they breed true, but sometimes there is a bit flip — a mutation — and it's a different replicator," explained Joyce.
Most of these mutations went away quickly, but — sound familiar? — some of the changes ended up being advantageous to the chemicals in replicating better. After 77 doublings of the chemicals, astounding changes had occurred in the molecular broth.
"All the original replicators went extinct and it was the new recombinants that took over," said Joyce. "There wasn't one winner. There was a whole cloud of winners, but there were three mutants that arose that pretty much dominated the population."
It turned out that while the scientist-designed enzymes were great at reproducing without competition, when you put them in the big soup mix, a new set of mutants emerged that were better at replicating within the system. It almost worked like an ecosystem, but with just straight chemistry. None of this involves living organisms... just organic molecules. Which you claim can do none of the above.
PostmodernProphet
03-12-2009, 03:01 PM
with respect to the land animals/whales issue, look at it this way...
you come to me with a two dimensional map of California.....the only thing marked on it are four cities....San Diego, Los Angeles, San Fransisco and Sacramento.....you also have a photograph of each city, showing evidence that there are roads in each.....
you are stating to me that with this evidence you have "proven" that there is a single road by which you can travel from San Diego to Sacramento....
I am saying to you that all you have proven is that there are four cities and men like to build roads in cities.....
PostmodernProphet
03-12-2009, 03:02 PM
Um, wrong. A change in a replicating molecule will be replicated in all its future descendants. This has been proven in labs with artificial molecules.
duplicate the catalytic agent and the same result occurs....this is not reproduction....these molecules do not reproduce themselves.....
from your source....
"If somebody makes something great in the lab, it's fantastic. But really the origin of life on Earth is an historical problem that we're never going to be able to witness and verify," he says.
DannyR
03-12-2009, 03:12 PM
duplicate the catalytic agent and the same result occurs....this is not reproduction....these molecules do not reproduce themselves.....utterly wrong there. That's like claiming a baby isn't alive because if you don't feed it it dies. Of course some source material must be present. You can't create matter out of nothing.
But by any definition of replication, that is what the molecules do. Where you have one complex molecule, you then have two, then four, etc. And as they proved, a change in one is passed along and can cause beneficial results creating more efficient competitors.
Sorry, you saying its just not true won't cut it. How about posting some links to others corroborating you now? I've more than satisfied my side of the argument regarding replicating molecules and mutation.
from your source....He's just pointing out the obvious that we weren't around to witness it. He's not saying its not true though. I wasn't around to see my grandparent's being born, and two of them never had birth certificates to "verify" it either. Does that mean God must have popped them into being from nothing?
PostmodernProphet
03-12-2009, 03:24 PM
utterly wrong there. That's like claiming a baby isn't alive because if you don't feed it it dies.
uh, no....read your own source......replication occurs because the scientist introduces a particular enzyme.....it isn't what keeps the baby alive, because your baby isn't alive and never will be....it's what causes a particular chemical reaction, and as any chemist can tell you, if you introduce a particular catalyst, the reaction will always be the same.....that is not biological reproduction, that is simply a reproducible experiment.....
You can't create matter out of nothing.
another problem for seculars, but you shouldn't bite off more than you can chew in one thread.....
But by any definition of replication, that is what the molecules do.
again, read your own source....they clearly distinguish this from reproduction....that's why they call it replication......
a change in one is passed along that is the point....the change is not 'passed on', it is merely repeated because of the presence of the enzyme acting as a catalyst.....this is not "life", this is a chemical reaction.....
He's just pointing out the obvious that we weren't around to witness it. He's not saying its not true though.
shucks.....here I thought he was being honest.....and you're trying to tell me he isn't?......
PostmodernProphet
03-12-2009, 03:25 PM
I wasn't around to see my grandparent's being born
I hope your great grandmother was there.....
DannyR
03-12-2009, 03:44 PM
the change is not 'passed on', it is merely repeated because of the presence of the enzyme acting as a catalystAnd now you are just playing word games. If a mutation is repeated, then its repeated! Thats the whole point of replication, to create additional copies.
they clearly distinguish this from reproduction....that's why they call it replicationMore word games. The whole point is that what once was one molecule is now two, is now four, etc. Duplicates are formed. A change in one molecule is carried forward in all duplicates it creates from then onward. Who cares if some enzyme must be present or not. Thats beside the point. I'd like to see your cells duplicate without the appropriate enzymes present as well! Does that mean they are not alive?
.....this is not "life", this is a chemical reaction.....Nobody said it was life! It is however very similar to life, which is the whole point of my argument.
http://www.learningthings.com/mmLEARNINGTHINGS/Images/MHC_WORD_GAMES_GRADES_6_8.GIF
PostmodernProphet
03-12-2009, 05:03 PM
And now you are just playing word games. If a mutation is repeated, then its repeated! Thats the whole point of replication, to create additional copies.
it's not word games.....living cells reproduce.....they create their own identical copies......replication is not reproduction.....you splash some enzyme on a puddle of organic chemicals and the resulting chemical reaction makes a whole bunch of different organic chemicals.....that is production, not reproduction....it isn't change brought about by mutation as you have in the process of evolution, it is change brought about by using a different enzyme in a lab experiment.....
if anything, it is only an example of intelligent design......
PostmodernProphet
03-12-2009, 05:05 PM
http://www.learningthings.com/mmLEARNINGTHINGS/Images/MHC_WORD_GAMES_GRADES_6_8.GIF
word games....any Michigander can tell you it's spelled Mackinac ....
sgtdmski
03-13-2009, 01:34 AM
I would be content if they just acknowledged they operated on faith.....
I agree but they won't, they can't. For you see science does not operate on faith, but rather fact. For them to admit that the Origin of Species by Darwin is faith, would mean that based upon their own tactics, evolution could not be taught in school, or if it was to continue to be taught, then it would have to open the door for other Creation stories.
dmk
sgtdmski
03-13-2009, 03:50 AM
Here's an explanation of how single cellular life evolved into multicellular life:
http://evolutionofcomputing.org/Multicellular/EvolutionOfMulticellularity.html
Wow a theory to support a theory. Isn't that quaint. And quoting from the article:
We do not know with much precision when and how the strategies arose that support today's multicellular organisms nor what alternatives were tried and failed. All we know is that what we see today survived the test of time.
So, speculation on how it happened to support the speculation on how it all occured. Isn't science just wonderful.
There are also numerous other methods for genomes to increase in complexity, to name a few:
Alternative splicing, RNA editing (Athanasiadis et al. 2004;
Blow et al. 2004), trans-splicing (Takahara et al. 2005), alternative
transcription start sites (Hashimoto et al. 2004), and alternative
polyadenylation transcription termination sites (Beaudoing and
Gautheret 2001) and Transcription Induced Chimera (Parra, Reymond, & Dabbouseh 2006).
Wow more man-made changes, once again proving that it takes a creator. Once again thanks for adding to the argument to prove ID.
I still don't buy your language of "addition/subtraction", but there are numerous methods the genes we have can double.
I am sorry you don't buy the language, however, having studied genetics for two semesters for my work in the lab, addition and subtraction, not to mention substitution were used quite routinely. In the studies, although addition is believed to be able to occur, thus far no examples of it have been notated, while additions have been man-made, no naturally occuring addition has been cited.
To show an example you might recognize, we have people with XXY genes being born from time to time. Such mutations usually don't go well for the individual, but this is not always true. Occassionally some double linked strand of DNA proves useful, and is kept in future generations.
But is this an addition or an abnormality, I believe it is considered an abnormality, but it does occur, since it is not beneficial to the species, wouldn't this go to disprove natural selection?
But you seem to be saying if we didn't observe it over millions of years in an actual lab setting it couldn't have happened. Not everything in science has to be directly observed. We can tell many things exist by the impact they have left all around them.
That is why science has the fossil record, which remains incomplete. All those supposed missing links remain MISSING, thus it cannot be observed, and since it cannot be duplicated in the laboratory, you are running out of valid scientific proof, an even stronger argument for evolution as a religion running only on your faith that one day, somewhere, someone will finally find the missing links.
But it does. Keep adding in those small changes, and eventually DNA has changed enough that the descendants of one branch are no longer close to that of another. Its simple math. You can't keep adding changes and expect it to remain the same.
And we've seen speciation in the real time we've been around to observe nature.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
Yet the changes within the descendants do not make it a new species. Again, I am not arguing about micro-evolution and natural selection, I am arguing against evolution as the idea that all life came from the a single cell organism that eventual evolved into every species on earth.
Just curious, but do you know anything about the development of a dog from a wolf? In just an EXTREMELY short period of time (in the grand scheme of things), humans have taken the raw material found in a wolf (Canis lupus), domesticated it, and turned it into a couple hundred different breeds of dog (Canis familiaris), many of which look absolutely nothing like each other. It always astonishes me that if such a wide change can be done in such a short time, why do you have such a problem with the idea that greater changes can take place in timeframes thousands of times longer?
But is it a new species, we have long known that dogs and wolves are related, that dogs arouse from the domestication of wolves, creating a new family in the same species. It proves again microevolution but does it truly prove macroevolution?
No idea what you are asking here. First single cell life was very likely simply a replicating molecule that had the bad luck of being surrounded by a couple of molecules of something else to form a protective wall. Hardly anything as complicated as human life.
So if the first life was that simple, how did it evolve into more complex life, without the addition of genetic material occuring naturally, something science has not found yet. Another missing link?
The fossil record doesn't record everything, and certainly aquatic based animals are even rarer finds. Most things that go into the ground rot away and are recycled. But we certainly do have proof only plantlife once existed on the earth. Fossilized plants that predate animal existence on land have been found.
Yes I know, I am fully aware of what the fossil record shows, and what it does not show. But unfortunately this does not help science. Science says that it must be taken as fact that evolution is the rationale explanation for life on earth, yet science has failed to prove that all life evolved from the first life on this planet, the simple cell. The missing links are missing, no transitional fossil has ever been found.
And I believe in gravitons, and electrons, and other things I can't see, because I can infer their existence from other data available. I don't need to spend a few million years doing a test to know something is true.
Oh so you yourself admit you take it on faith. Thank you!!!!!
The genetic code of animals shows a pretty clear progression of how animals have evolved.
The geologic record agrees with this, and the dates of match!
Science requires that observations can be replicated. The observations on which evolution is based, including comparative anatomy, genetics, and fossils, are replicable.
Yet science cannot change one species into another, science cannot show through use of the fossil record, and genetics proves that all life on this planet has the same basic building blocks in genetics, no surprise there since we are carbon based creatures. So science is good a showing evolution within a species, but not from one species into another, which must be taken as fact, for that is what evolution claims, again you are working on faith because you see it on the smaller scale, therefore you assume it must occur on the larger scale.
Repeatable experiments, including experiments about mutations and natural selection in the laboratory and in the field, also support evolution.
Again they support micro-evolution not macro-evolution. You have yet to cite an experiment that shows the addition of genetic material, without of course, the scientist manipulating the experiment to add it. Once again proving that microevolution occurs, but for macroevolution you need a creator, in your cases the scientist.
Interesting how these earlier hominids existed at a time when humans did not, and they began to disappear from the fossil record as more modern humans and hominids appeared. They didn't just go extinct, they CHANGED.
Really? Hmmm I thought that neanderthal and cromagnum man were found within the same time frame, wouldn't that throw your statement for a loop. Furthermore I found this quote to be quite interesting:
Nevertheless, a closer examination of the evidence reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof. Source (http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm)
Good thing we compare such things all the time. Fossil record has numerous chains of species evolving into other species for which the relationship is clear.
Based only upon the fact that one species appears in this time frame, goes missing and this other species is found, therefore it must be related.
Um, no... because the death of the dinosaurs cleared the way for mammals rise. And the hard work had already been done at that point. Millions of years is still plenty of time. Nobody has said EVERY bit of life disappeared when they vanished. Perhaps if they hadn't vanished, you and I would look like sleestaks or Visitors.
But again the death of dinosaurs based upon the scientific explanation for their extinction narrows your time frame for the so-called evolution to occur, instead of having billions of years, you have now been reduced to millions, which really calls into question your ideal that given time. Hmmm
[
Faith implies something can't be proven and must be taken without any support at all. Given all the data, evolution has no need of faith.
Evolution relies solely on faith and speculation and assumption and so on. But because it is scientifically based it must be believed. Nice try, no cigar.
dmk
Missileman
03-13-2009, 06:03 AM
Evolution relies solely on faith and speculation and assumption and so on. But because it is scientifically based it must be believed. Nice try, no cigar.
dmk
Baloney...faith is belief where NO evidence exists. You can't make any valid comparisons to a scientific theory and mythology or the belief in either.
And still waiting for you to provide more info on the scientific mother of all bombshells...that genetics disproves evolution, as you claimed.
PostmodernProphet
03-13-2009, 06:22 AM
Baloney...faith is belief where NO evidence exists.
which is precisely what he said......since there is NO evidence of macro-evolution, your belief in it is simply faith......
DannyR
03-13-2009, 09:44 AM
Wow more man-made changes, once again proving that it takes a creator. Once again thanks for adding to the argument to prove ID.Eh? Those are natural processes documented in a lab, not man-made. Your two semesters of genetics is failing you. Several different ways that genetic information grows in complexity. You wanted "addition", I gave it to you.
Trying to find a linkable definition. Wiki has one for Alternative splicing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_splicing) for example that notes the following:
It has been proposed that for eukaryotes it was a very important step towards higher efficiency, because information can be stored much more economically. Several proteins can be encoded in a DNA sequence whose length would only be enough for two proteins in the prokaryote way of coding. Others have noted that it is unnecessary to change the DNA of a gene for the evolution of a new protein. Instead, a new way of regulation could lead to the same effect, but leaving the code for the established proteins unharmed.
Another speculation is that new proteins could be allowed to evolve much faster than in prokaryotes. Furthermore, they are based on hitherto functional amino acid subchains. This may allow for a higher probability for a functional new protein. Therefore the adaptation to new environments can be much faster - with fewer generations - than in prokaryotes. This might have been one very important step for multicellular organisms with a longer life cycle.Obviously I wasn't talking just about a lab technique!
In the studies, although addition is believed to be able to occur, thus far no examples of it have been notated, while additions have been man-made, no naturally occuring addition has been cited.See above.
But is this an addition or an abnormality, I believe it is considered an abnormality, but it does occur, since it is not beneficial to the species, wouldn't this go to disprove natural selection?Not every abnormality is a negative. Some are positive. Once again, proof that genetic information "adds" as you put it.
That is why science has the fossil record, which remains incomplete. All those supposed missing links remain MISSINGThats the problem with people who clamor about "missing" links. The chain is growing more complete every day, but you still like to point at the holes. To look at it another way, we used to have #1 and then a #100. I find #50, and you ask where is 25 and 75? I find them, and you ask where is 13, etc? There will always be missing links. No matter how many numbers we find, you won't be satisfied until EVERY number is found, which is impossible. You ignore the fact that we've filled in a lot of information closing the gaps greatly.
So if the first life was that simple, how did it evolve into more complex life, without the addition of genetic material occuring naturally, something science has not found yet.Already covered that.
So science is good a showing evolution within a species, but not from one species into another, which must be taken as fact, for that is what evolution claims, again you are working on faith because you see it on the smaller scale, therefore you assume it must occur on the larger scale.Assumptions based on hard data is not faith.
You have yet to cite an experiment that shows the addition of genetic material, without of course, the scientist manipulating the experiment to add it.I've shown several methods genetic material made more complex. You yourself admit the existence of XXY individuals, and thus see that naturally DNA can combine in abnormal methods. All it takes in evolution is for just 1 such abnormal occurance to work and it will be passed along. In other threads I've pointed out that there are a number of virii that infect us and add genetic information or DNA as well. Sorry, you're going to have to start posting some proof if you want me to actually accept your claim that genetic information can never be added to. I've posted numerous methods already. The whole basis of your argument is on shaky ground.
Really? Hmmm I thought that neanderthal and cromagnum man were found within the same time frame, wouldn't that throw your statement for a loop. No, because I never said EVERY hominid ever found is a direct descendant of us. Those we are descended from are no longer here though. However thats not to say that evolution requires a descendant to vanish. There are numerous cases of alternative branches living side by side and each thriving - the trick is that they can't be so close together that competition drives one out of business so to speak. The pre-historic world was big enough for neaderthals and early man to coexist. The modern world was not so forgiving, and neaderthal's lost out to homo sapiens. I just find it funny that some Creator, if you take ID seriously, must have just been experimenting with humans based on what we've found thus far. "Lets try this type of man. Nope, doesn't work. Erase that. Ok, now create a new type. Hmmm, better, but not quite there yet." ;)
Nice try, no cigar.Ditto that. I've posted numerous links and proofs. Haven't seen any evidence on your side yet. Of course thats the trick. Your side is entirely about replacing "faith" when evidence isn't available.
PostmodernProphet
03-13-2009, 10:06 AM
Of course thats the trick. Your side is entirely about replacing "faith" when evidence isn't available.
but why isn't it obvious to you that you require just as much faith to link your #1, #50, and #100 as any creationist does to link what we have with a creator?.......as I stated in an earlier post (and you have yet to respond to) you have proofs there are roads in San Diego and roads in Sacramento but you have no proof you can drive from one to the other.....
DannyR
03-13-2009, 11:06 AM
but why isn't it obvious to you that you require just as much faith to link your #1, #50, and #100 as any creationist does to link what we have with a creator?
Because faith isn't necessary. We PREDICT that future links are found between #1 and #100, and what do you know, they turn up. Science is predictive based upon evidence.
Based on faith alone, there is no reason to expect we'll keep finding missing links. In fact, you keep saying they don't exist, but we keep finding them.
PostmodernProphet
03-13-2009, 12:29 PM
but we keep finding them.
obviously, your faith is strong....considering how few you've actually found....you've discovered Los Angeles and San Fransisco, but still have shown no evidence of roads connecting San Diego and Sacramento......
DannyR
03-13-2009, 03:48 PM
considering how few you've actually found*lol* Do you have any idea how many pre-modern human fossils have been found? It numbers in the thousands now, with 20 or so strongly identified different species. Not too shabby given that people really haven't been looking at fossils for all that long, and only this past century understood what they probably were.
So on the list, we're looking at 1 5 10 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 and you're complaining we haven't found #15 yet.
Well, in actuality creationists usually just lop off everything short of 100 and pretend they aren't related to humans at all.
And your city metaphor is rather weak. Looking at a map showing the terrain of a region, one can make a good prediction of where various cities might be developed.
Using faith, you tap your shoes three times and suddenly expect the Emerald City to show up. :laugh2:
Mr. P
03-13-2009, 04:13 PM
This ID or evovlution thing has always been silly to me.
There is no reason that one who believes in evolution can not also believe in a God or greater being..whatever.
DragonStryk72
03-13-2009, 04:23 PM
A reasonable question was presented. Let us talk about the mutation you cited, the mutation is not the addition of an allele, but rather a mutation which has a deletion of proteins associated with the normal ccr5 allele. Once again we see a mutation that is a subtraction, not an addition, meaning the mutation was caused not by genetics adding something new to the human genome but rather taking something away from the genome.
So the point still remains, how could a primordial liquid for first into a single cell, and then into the different various species in the plant and animal kingdoms, when the mutations that have been discovered by science have all shown that mutations within species result from subtraction and not addition?
dmk
I don't know, how could god exist? Seems if you're going to tear down Evolution, then it is at least fair to fire back with a hit to creationism, since God is entirely based on faith argument (Yes, the bible writers were obviously biased in a pro-"there is a God" way), so without a time machine, and a time stasis chamber, we are just not going to have full answers to that here on this debate forum. There are no PHd biologists on the site, so far as I know, and frankly, the scientific are stale and the most boring slog of a read that you could ask for.
btw: Dogs, having at some point been wolves, proves, at least to a certain extent that evolution occurs.
PostmodernProphet
03-13-2009, 05:11 PM
*lol* Do you have any idea how many pre-modern human fossils have been found?
in your opinion or mine?......I would go with none.....
PostmodernProphet
03-13-2009, 05:12 PM
And your city metaphor is rather weak. Looking at a map showing the terrain of a region, one can make a good prediction of where various cities might be developed.
so you have faith in your ability to predict roads?....I asked for proof.....
PostmodernProphet
03-13-2009, 05:13 PM
I don't know, how could god exist?
anything that cannot be proven not to exist, could exist.....
PostmodernProphet
03-13-2009, 05:14 PM
since God is entirely based on faith argument
/shrugs....and the only argument I have raised is that evolution is also based on faith.....
bullypulpit
03-13-2009, 08:56 PM
Can you please explain to me then, how something without ANY intelligence - pond scum - eventually worked its way into becoming a Human being?
Something without any intelligence develops from a mass of undifferentiated cells to a fully formed and functioning human being in a score of years, geive or take a couple. Why is it so difficult to accept , then, that single celled organisms can organize themselves into complex life-forms, as in humans, over the course of billions of years?
Your thread opener presupposes that evolution occurs in great leaps, which is not the case. It is incremental.
sgtdmski
03-15-2009, 05:11 AM
Something without any intelligence develops from a mass of undifferentiated cells to a fully formed and functioning human being in a score of years, geive or take a couple. Why is it so difficult to accept , then, that single celled organisms can organize themselves into complex life-forms, as in humans, over the course of billions of years?
Your thread opener presupposes that evolution occurs in great leaps, which is not the case. It is incremental.
But it is not billions of years, it is only millions.
Remember that catastrophic asteriod or meter that is responsible for the elimination of the dinosaurs, that left the cloud of dust in the air killing off all but the most basic of life.
dmk
bullypulpit
03-15-2009, 05:43 AM
But it is not billions of years, it is only millions.
Remember that catastrophic asteriod or meter that is responsible for the elimination of the dinosaurs, that left the cloud of dust in the air killing off all but the most basic of life.
dmk
Umm...not so much. There were still complex life forms after the K-T extinction event...small mammals and reptiles...sea life...ferns and other vegetation. and 65 million years is a looooong time in terms of evolution. Go back to your Jack Chick comics...
<center><img src=http://www.chick.com/tractimages35653/0055/0055_01.gif></center>
PostmodernProphet
03-15-2009, 05:51 AM
Something without any intelligence develops from a mass of undifferentiated cells to a fully formed and functioning human being in a score of years, geive or take a couple. Why is it so difficult to accept , then, that single celled organisms can organize themselves into complex life-forms, as in humans, over the course of billions of years?
Your thread opener presupposes that evolution occurs in great leaps, which is not the case. It is incremental.
perhaps because that "mass of undifferentiated cells" already has a fully developed DNA programmed to produce that functioning human being.......and pond scum is scum.....
Missileman
03-15-2009, 08:42 AM
But it is not billions of years, it is only millions.
Remember that catastrophic asteriod or meter that is responsible for the elimination of the dinosaurs, that left the cloud of dust in the air killing off all but the most basic of life.
dmk
The dinosaurs shared the planet with lots of complex life that survived iirc, including mammals.
DannyR
03-15-2009, 09:22 AM
Remember that catastrophic asteriod or meter that is responsible for the elimination of the dinosaurs, that left the cloud of dust in the air killing off all but the most basic of life.Sorry, but as I mentioned above you are exaggerating the death toll there.
The Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction had the effect of killing off the dominant species of the day, the dinosaurs. However it didn't kill off mammals, and in fact barely touched them, therefore leaving our own descent intact.
And the event is a very good example of how evolution works, as hot blooded mammals can survive much colder weather than reptiles, thus the reason they became the dominant species on earth afterward.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.