Printable View
www.darwinismrefuted.com
It's quite unique amongst sites I've visited in that it concentrates purely on the science and doesn't appear to bring God into at all which is an instant turn off for so many people.
Some interesting stuff on there, good prima reading for those interested in learning more about evolution and how scientifically proven it really is..........
Man I remeber the last thread on this topic...WOW that was a long one
And a boring one!!
Does anyone give a flying f*ck about anti Evolutionary stuff?
Only intelligent people Smash ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Smashup
I had racists down as thick cunts Dildo ;)
Yes, but the subject matter and discussion at the end was quite different to that at the beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
Take that, you anti-Darwins ;D
haha ccQuote:
Originally Posted by X
Not all of us 8)Quote:
Originally Posted by Smashup
I have one problem with this website: It doesn't say what really happened. It just goes on to disprove macro evolution, quite handily I may add, but yet offers no explanation on what happened. I have no problem with one scientist disproving another but coming up with a right answer is more important than just disproving somebody else's idea.
I got an idea from a video game (its called E.V.O. and its for the super nintendo). Basically you start out as a tadpole/fish and end up evolving up into alien form. Its a great game (wheather you believe in evolution or not) but the scientific basis for it is non-existant. You are the same creature and you evolve thru species after species, time period after time period (fish, amphibian, reptile, mammel, etc.).
Why it gave me an idea is because it focuses on a single lifeforms adaption, variation, or evolution w/e you want to call it. Because we didn't live back then, we have no idea what the life expectance of a dinosaur was. The golapogos island turtle can live to be 150 or more years old (they are reptiles and to date the longest living species of any animal we have discovered). Because their environment remains constant, there is no need for adaptions. If these things (dinosaurs) were capable of living for centuries (i'll say why i think this may have been possible alittle later on), they would've had numerous chances at adapting/variating chracteristics that some of their own species hadn't which would give the illusion of evolution and quite possibly the illusion that a species was different than another when in fact it was an old acclimated dinosaur that died. Its believed that none of these acquired characteristics from an old dinosaur would transfer to its young. That may be true, but whens the last time you've heard about a persons apendix working like it used to?
Its been theorized that at one point earths gravity was less than it is today (not extremely less but enough to be significant). The idea for this comes from the fact that plants and animals back then were much bigger than they are now. There was also more oxygen and co2 in the atmoshpere than there is today. With more oxygen, less gravity bearing down on a skeletal frame, and notoriously slow metabolic rates (which almost all reptiles possess), living was easier so it would be safe to assume that these things were "built" to be around for a while. There would then be many generations coming from a single mother dinosaur. They say that parents acquired traits don't pass on to their young but yet there's humans whose childrens inheirit their bad eyes when their parents parents eyes were fine and no such previous trait existed.
I can't provide a theory on how things would macro jump from being dinosaur one year and bird the next but something had to happen.
Glad you find the website interesting. Actually I'm pleased they don't offer any alternative explanations because thats where most wesbites lose me and many others.Quote:
Originally Posted by NotGuilty136
They have taken the route of sticking 100% to scientific method and evaluating evelotionary theory on a scientifici basis only without any recourse to religion, philosophy or outlandish ideas and such seems to be quite a unique sit on the web.
Regarding the atmosphere in times past you are absolutely correct, there was a massive increase in oxygen present in the earth's atmosphere in the past.
This was always one of the most convincing aspects of the bible for me in that it says that in the beginning that giants lived on the earth and people lived for hundreds of years.
Scientists have uncovered gigantic species of many types of animal. There were millipides over 6 ft in length, dragon flies with wingspans bigger than most modern birds and sloth's over 25 ft in length! Even horses, reindeer, kangeroo, rats etc were all massive sometimes over twice the size that they are today.
It is biologically impossible for animals to grow so big now as there is not enough oxygen in the atmosphere to support them.
It is also true in the case of reptiles that they keep growing their entire lives so a huge crocodile is a very old crocodile, over 100 years in the case of the biggest ones. Well there are ancient fossils of crocodile twice the length of modern crocs suggesting they must have been twice the age (200 years) and of course fossil finds are very infrequent so we can assume they got even bigger.
The largest dinosars must have been in the hundreds of years old and it wasn't just them, most mammals were gigantic as well.
It is also interesting that many ancient cave paintings depict a massive disparity in size between the painters (cavespeople) and the game they were hunting (reindeer, horses etc).
You can't completely rule out the significance of "missing links" if they were found to be living at the same time as their genetic ancestors or descendants because of that. Its possible that three fossils showing genetic "evolution" are actually just 3 of the same species. If one was around for 100 years when it died it wouldn't be as variated as one around for 200 years and so on. I can't tell you how a reptile became a mammal but the developement of the mammal brain in living creatures is one of the most important events in the advancement of earth life evenly ranking with gaining the ability to walk on land..Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
It's interesting to read how many scientists think that evolution happended because science can't proove anything else. I, as a scientist myself, don't rule out evolution. Sure, I think things evolve over time, and I ask Christians all the time, "so you think that Adam and Eve looked exactly like us?" Almost all answer NO, and that they were likely a little harrier. Then I say, well that in itself is an evolutionary process. So I do think we've come from a primitive form, and as a Christian I think it's ok to think that.. because "somebody up there" maybe wanted it that way. So, I believe in God, but I also think that evolutionary processes did occur. You're thinking, "WTF Von? How can you think both.?"
Ok, I didn't read that site. I hate to read, but as a guy with a master's degree in chemistry I don't think I have to read it to already know what they're gonna say, and I agree.
See, things because more random over time. A fart doesn't keep to itself. The molecules spread to the table next to you where the old hag is sitting eating her t-bone. This is one of the he most basic of all scientific laws. Entropy. Randomness. Molecules don't "come together" for any reason... unless you make them do it. I "made molecules come together" as a career as a synthetic organic chemist. It aint easy.
The fact that the big bang theory says that molecules came together one day and formed primitive life, well, that's jut stupid. That's like winning the state lottery every week. Bricks don't line up to form a skyscraper themselves. The wind doesn't give a woman a beehive hairdo. Impossible. Then, what happened over the however many trillions of years is even more ridiculous.. that live evolved just because. In science, that doesn't happen. Things never get more complex on their own. DNA forming randomly and giving life doesn't happen. That's like little specs of metal coming together and forming an intricate pattern like a perpetual time piece or something. And to thin that the processes that we have.. DNA unwnds and protein enzymes do their thing to repicate the unwould anti-paralle l double helix... ugh. It's like cars building themselves or something even though humans never designed them. We are so complex, to think that we just happened over time based on whatever principle, like survival of the fittest, is absurd. That's not how science works. In this sense, evolution is impossible since it violates all the scientific laws of thermodynamics...... UNLESS.....somebody or some THING...ie, the man upstairs... had a hand in it...wanted it that way.
Basically, evolution on it's own, the formation of DNA and it's ability to self replicate, etc, is like throwing ten decks of cards in the air and having them land in the shape of a Frank Lloyd Wright house with a two car garage and a jacuzzi out back.
cc I completely agree with all of it, expect the part that Adam and Eve were hairy ??? :P
The second law of thermodynamics is indeed one of the fundamental laws of the universe with seemingly no exceptions.......except for evolution.......ermm right ok so evolution actually runs counter to the most basic fundamental law of the whole universe but it doesn't matter because evolution must be true and there must an explanation somehow ::**
It's always puzzled me why scientists have a problem with Jesus being raised from the dead seeing as evolution itself manages to defy the universal law of entropy and death and run the other so why not the Son of God?
It's funny but I've yet to meet anyone who has ever really studied evolution, (and by studied I mean look critically at evidence against it not just accept it as fact a priori like most 'scientists' do) who continues to believe in it.
Evolution reminds me of the Hans Christian Anderson tale about the Emperor's New Clothes. The emperor who was a naturally greedy man was approached by two con men who told him they were master tailers who had designed an amazing magical outfit that would only be visible to intelligent people and anyone stupid and dumb would not be able to see it.
The ruler sent two of his most trusted men to view the garments, and seeing as they didn't exist they obviously couldn't see anything. However they certainly didn't want to be seen as stupid so they pretended they could see the outfit and that is was beautiful to behold and extrememly stylish.
The emperor was completely sold, the tailors bought the clothes to him and he tried them on. He marveled at how wanderous they were and was convinced to make a procession through town to let everyone admire him.
The crowd already knew the story about how only intelligent people could see the clothes so when he appeared naked on a horse they all cheered and admired and shouted out how wonderful the new clothes were.
All that is except one little boy. Too young to understand anything about the ridiculous tale he simply asked his mummy why the fat man on a horse was wearing no clothes?
She tried to silence him but not before another child overheard and said even louder 'That man's not wearing any clothes!'
All of sudden all the children were pointing and laughing at the man with no clothes and a few of their parents began to agree and laughed as well. Within a few minuted everybody realised it was all a hoax and laughed and jeered at their foolish emperor who now looked completely ridiculous.
The theory of evolution is exactly like this. When Darwin 'invented' his theory he said in his book 'The Origin of Species' that were the fossils not found to prove his theory then all of his ideas would be proven wrong.
Well the fossils have never been found, and most evolutionists are now of the belief that evolution left no trace in the fossil record because it occurs too quickly in isolated populations so you couldn't expect a fossil record of these events..............does this sound a bit like stupid people won't be able to see these clothes? ^-^
Of course the people of Darwins day, and Darwin himself knew nothing of genetics and DNA. Molecular biology has proven conclusively that things can't just change for no reason and that even the smallest single celled organism is more complicated than anything man has ever invented. That something with more internal workings than a whole factory full of supercomputers could simply appear out of thin air (or out of a rock) is completely absurd no matter how many years you wait for the 'pop' to happen ::**
Still I know my words won't convince anyone but the already converted but hopefully someone at least would be interested enough to study it for themselves as I personally think it's shameful to be fooled into believing such a transparent and stupid lie as evolution.
I look at this website and I see it saying things are invalid but not really proving anything. I haven't read it thoroughly because a lot of it is just a run down of the history of theories saying they are crap rather than actual evidence as to why. You'll have to point me in the right direction if there are particular points in that worth reading.
I don't think the theory of evolution is about how things were created but how they have evolved over time. You can believe what you like about how life was initially created but it doesn't mean it hasn't been subject to micro and macro evolution over time.
I keep reading bits and pieces about how people think that an ancient animal existing at the same time as a more recently evolved creature somehow disproves evolution.
It doesn't.
The way animals are influenced over time depends on their form, their behaviour including migration patterns and how that is or isn't suited to survival in their environment.
If their environment changes but they don't it could be that they were pretty robust in surviving different conditions in the first place. Say something like a cockroach doesn't die easily and flies reproduce so damn quickly that they are not very vulnerable.
Still if you could examine a living specimen of one of these creatures from a few thousand years ago and compare it with one existing now you'd find they probably still differed in some ways for example disease resistance, exact diet would have changed etc etc. They have evolved just in ways which are less visible.
Scientists in my lab often use rice synteny to track down the location of genes on the barley or wheat genome. They do this because the rice genome has been fully sequenced and barley and wheat have not. As rice and barley are both cereals the idea is that you get the sequence of the barley or wheat gene and find a close match in the rice genome. The genes are normally slightly different but the proteins are similar in form and function - not exactly the same but similar.
They were looking for a gene in barley and sequenced the region they expected to find it in according to the rice sequence and found that a whole segment of DNA was in a different position than they would have predicted from rice synteny. Rice is more ancient than barley and somewhere along the way a cross over and inversion event occurred. They share similar genes but in different parts of the genome, some are completely inverted which makes for a very different plant.
That's just one specific example I know of and it's not random shuffling of DNA is a specific stage in meiosis and cellular replication. Cancer is started by mutagenesis of cells. It's lethal because it makes cells function differently and it's often caused by things like UV light, radiation etc. The difference is when a person gets cancer the DNA in a differentiated cell is effected.
If a non lethal mutation occurs in an embryonic cell you have a genetically modified organism. We know cancer is common and a product of loads of environmental influences (carcinogens) so why does it seen so absurd to people to think that an embryo can't be genetically modified.
Dramatic things happen in nature like ice ages etc. If you have a population of say 2 million people and theres an ice age. Some decide to stick it out and some migrate. They eat different food as their environment changes, they have different behavioural patterns, their hormones are effected. Lets say it's a really brutal ice age, it lowers their immune system, they get a few viruses which are different in different places and wa la their populations are now down to 2 remote camps for 200 or so. Few survive and their gene pool is narrowed to particular groups with more or less body hair and tolerance to specific diets and disease - they become DIFFERENT.
It's a big change because the selection pressure is harsh for them - not necessarily all animals as some might have already been better able to tolerate the cold.
Macro evolution can just be microevolution under a harsher selection pressure.
You can still say god is behind it. No one can disprove it.
Also if you were god speaking to people thousands of years ago you'd know these people who don't even get that the earth is round yet would understand that. You'd dumb it down for them. "You'd say I created all these other things and then along you came, now I'm gonna rest for a bit and leave you to it have a nice life." - you wouldn't bother trying to explain evolution as your tool for creation would you!
Hey Sharla, cc for another good response but again you are talking only about adaptation or changes within a species or kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharla
Nobody to my knowledge disputes changes to an organism due to natural selection, genetic modification or other enviromental pressures to my knowldege but all these changes are strictly limited and confined to slight alterations of already preexistant lines of code.
Barley and wheat may share a common ancester and maybe adapt to become different over time, but they will always remain plants, they will never become insects or some other form of animal because the necessary information just isn't there.
No matter how much time is allowed, or how much enviromental or laboratory pressure is put on these organsims they will never turn into an animal simply because there are no instructions within the DNA to tell it how to do so.
Changes such as size, colour, body dimension, behaviour etc can all be easily manipulated by slight alterations in the genes but new appendages, wings, eyes when there were no eyes etc simply cannot happen as there isn't any preexistant material to be manipulated.
And if you want to insist that such change could be possible providing there was a big enough timeframe then it only contradicts other things we see in nature, for example a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. How on earth would a caterpiller, gradually over millions of years evolve the ability to turn into a butterfly?
It would have to get it right the very first time else there would be no future caterpillars. But you yourself as a biologist would surely know that the immense amount of instructions required to turn a caterpiller into a butterfly could not appear instantly in one generation!
There is nothing that you describe than cannot be seen simply as being an inbuilt (I'd say by God) survival mechanism in all organisms to be able to adapt to fit their changing enviroment. If they could not then all of life would have died out a long time ago.
The evidence for natural selection, adaptation, genetic variance etc is overwhelming and irrefutable, nobody denies this, but to draw a conclusion from it that these relatively tiny changes within an organism can lead to whole new creatures evolving out of them given enough time is a conclusion that neither molecular biology or the fossils themselves offer no support for whatsoever.
It's a catch 22 for evolutionists. If you argue that changes are so gradual taking millions of years then you are left trying to explain how the fossil record has managed to cover up every stage of evolution for every living organism on this planet. If evolution were true we'd have more transitional fossils than we would fully developed species fossils yet we have none.
If you argue that evolution happens so quickly that it will leave no trace in the fossil record then you are suggesting something that is surely biologically impossible as it cannot be possible for the amount of information needed at the molecular level to induce massive change, dinosaur to bird for example just could not appear in such a short time. Knowing what we now know about the complexity of even the simplest molecule this as idiotic as suggesting like our forefathers did that flies and low level insects sponataneously appeared.
Bilbo, yer a smart fella. CC. 8)
Sharla, you're a geneticist? Ever get the feeling you and I were brought together by fate? ;D jk ;)
I don't believe the theory of macro evolution suggests a plant should be able to suddenly become an animal or an insect. Macro evolution is talking about a new species forming. Plants like rice and barley are different species.
Never have I ever heard of any scientist claiming a rice plant will evolve to be a mammal. Unless it occurred over millions of years as a consequence of the evolution of many intermediate species. Arguing that says absolutely nothing to disprove evolution.
new appendages can happen. We've all heard of people born with a sixth toe and 2 headed snakes etc.
A caterpillar will have exactly the same genetic sequence as the butterfly it becomes. It's just a growth and development stage like a human baby in a womb or a chick in it's egg so i have no idea of what you were trying to say there.
Fossils and molecular biology do offer support for the theory of evolution. I think I've explained that already.
Sure fossil records are still being pieced together. But so is medicine and computer science etc etc. Dealing with and finding old fossils and analysing them is a science. Something has had a long time to degrade - it takes a lot of work to assess and analyse. it doesn't mean it wasn't there in the first place and it doesn't mean the pieces won't fit together more completely as we learn more. You want to see all the pieces to believe in something then you'll understand why not everyone shares YOUR beliefs. Time will produce more evidence and no doubt you'll keep saying it's all crap no matter how much there is!
Hey Sharla, I think you mistunderstood me slightly. First off the theory of macro evolution DOES suggest a plant can become an animal, we are after all according the theory merely highly evolved blue-green algae that once floated in primordial soupy sea. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharla
Your caveat of 'unless it occurred over millions of years' I emphasised in my last post. If these changes did occur slowly over millions of years then where are the fossils? Dinosaurs evolved slowly into birds over millions of years........ok then so why do we have fossils of dinosaurs and fossils of birds but of the millions of years in between we have nothing. And this goes for every species not just birds and dinosaurs.
As to the appendeges you are completely misundrstanding me. I'm not talking about an extra toe or even a head I'm talking about appendages that are new to the organism, your wheat may produce ears of corn but it surely can't produce an actual ear because the code is not there.
Fossils and molecular biology support evolution? No they support adaptation within a species and limited transmutation between closely related species of which I agree 100%
The fossil record still being pieced together is irelevent, it's not that we don't have enough evidence to understand evolution yet it's the precise opposite we have too much and it's all against it!
Firstly it disobeys the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, secondly the fossil record is virtual proof positive that it hasn't occured, thirdly molecular biology shows that nothing can just appear out of nowhere or suddenly change but that reams of genetic code within the DNA must first be present in an organism for change to occur. We also know that these changes don't just randomly occur, if they did biochemistry and medicine would be impossible!
The case against evolution is mounting all the time. It's fascinating to trace the historical development of evolutionary thought and the evidences for it from the time Lamarck and Darwin's grandfather Erasmus to the present day.
All of the evidence for evolution as presented in Darwins day is no longer accepted within the evolutionary community, in fact every couple decades or so all the preceding evidence gets thrown out and revised and new evidence is brought in. The universe has aged around a billion years every decade in the last hundred years to fit the ever changing evolutionary theories.
All of our old so called ancestors Neanderthal, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man etc have all been dismissed and the more recent findings the australopithicenes, homo habilis, homo erectus etc are going the same way.
American evolutionists led by the now deceased Stephen Jay Gould proclaim the Dawkins form of neo Darwinisiam dead due to lack of fossil evidence whilst Dawkins and the molecular geneticists decry that Gould's puncuated equilibrium theory is scientifically impossible.
Both camps basically argue the scientific impossibility of the other's beliefs and guess what.......they are both right! ;)
If you claim to understand the laws of thermodynamics what are they and how does evolution go against them? Coz i don't believe you.
Macro evolution does NOT claim that a plant will suddenly become an animal. It claims that it will specialize bit by bit to gradually become something different. You might want to read a little more about what the theory of macro evolution is before you bag it. Not what anti-evolution websites say it is!
Your cells are not carcinogenic until their DNA is altered by UV light or some other mutagen to suddenly change it's sequence in those particular cells. So YES new DNA sequences can occur that were not there before. They do NOT for the millionth time have to have always been there to exist.
I've been over that.
The fact that the theory of how specific species evolved over time is changing is not evidence against macro evolution. It's just evidence for the fact that scientists are working hard to uncover more about how individual species evolved. We're learning more about specific points in history which tell a story not that things didn't evolve at all. The basic concept that can occur has not been disproved.
If they were frauds as you suggested in your previous thread this would not happen. They'd stick to their original story very stubbornly despite all the evidence ........ rather like you.
Where is the meal you ate 3 weeks ago? Can you pin point the remnants of it exactly? and can you trace it to the sewer and identify the effluent that it became? Can you show you ate it? Can you tell exactly what it was? No but that doesn't mean that you didn't eat and have somehow miraculously survived without eating!
You probably could fish into your kitchen bin and show scraps of food you used to make your dinner. You probably could - if you were a plumber - trace your most recent effluent and tell the difference between that and cow shit.
There are fossils dating in between millions of years ago and the present time. You pulled that little statement out of nowhere!
You've also got to stop using the word random because you don't understand what is random and what is not. Reshuffling of homologous chromosomes is random, crossing over events are relatively random but less likely close to the sight of chromosome pairing. Mutagenic chemicals or UV light etc striking DNA and mutating it occurs because of environmental factors that are NOT random. A lot of mutations occur which are lethal or non-beneficial and do NOT get passed on. The fact that some do is NOT random it's because they are advantageous for survival in the environment in some way.
The basis of microevolution and mechanism is the same as for macroevolution. It's a bit hypocritical to say that you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.
Now we have to technology to see that some evolution has occurred and because we can't trace every little step and you somehow irrationally believe it threatens your religious views you're bagging every scientist who ever worked in that field. Get over it!
Aww bollocks, I just wrote out a massive response to this and then went to close another window and shut it by mistake.
GGRRRRR!!! >:mad
Hang on I'll rewrite the whole blasted thing ;D
Ok second attempt I hope I don't delete this this time!
First of all though I detect some hostility in your tone which I find a bit baffling. This is (or should be) just an interesting interchange of ideas and beliefs, as someone who is interested in the subject I find this conversation stimulating but I in no way am annoyed or irritated by the fact you don't agree with me. And remember, you started this debate here I merely listed a website I enjoyed reading! This should just be a fun conversation, it is for me, please if it's annoying you then you don't to have to reply to me!
Anyway that said let me try and answer your points. I'll refer to the second law of thermodynamic as SLOTD for convenience and if anything I say sounds patrinising, please don't take it that way, I already assume you are well versed in the second law, I'm just trying to convince you that I am too!
Ok so in laymans terms the SLOTD states that everything in the universe is running down or going from a state of usueful energy to less useful energy. It teaches that all systems will lead to their most probable state, which is a state of randomness and that as systems increase in entropy there will be less available energy to do useful work.
In other words all systems lead to a state of increasing disorder, everything is running down.
Evolution flies completely counter to this law at every step of the way. I know we are not talking specifically about the Big Bang here but ultimately that is where the story of evolution begins so it must be considered in the light of this law.
So we start with a big bang, a huge violent explosions of gases and extremely dense matter that explodes in every direction. Now as anyone who has ever seen an explosion can testify they are anything but orderly! Yet evolution requires that out of this chaotic explosion things became infinitely more ordered and structured, galaxies and solar systems forming, each with their own stars and planets, all in neat orbits of each other. When it comes to actual life on earth we see the same problem, namely that organisms, despite existing in a universe where everything is decaying, actually increase in complexity and order evolving to a higher state of existant.
This is a complete antithesis of the SLOTD which says that left to its own devices this kind of order could not have occured.
As to what macro evolution is and is not I feel I understand well enough what it is, I just don't happen to agree with you that there is sufficent evidence to support it,especially as it contradicts the SLOTD as briefed above, has left little to no trace in the fossil record, and our own attempts to manipulate or force evolution have failed miserably. Any interbreeding of animal species always produces infertile offspring, experiments on fruit flies shows that they resist any effects of radiation once a few generations have passed and of course I don't see any biological evidence to support how such change could come about anyhow.
You want to stress that macro evolution occurs very gradually, that is fine but you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If it occurs gradually how is an organism to function for the millions of years in between evolving from one species to another?
How for example did the early dino birds survive before their wings were fully developed? Could you even draw me a series of drawings showing how a velocoraptor turned gradually into a bird all the time being fully adapted and suited to its own envirmental niche and able to survive and mate unimpeded by it's transmorphing?
Reptilian skin gradually over millions of years became feathers, bones gradually over millions of years became hollow, the lungs and respirotary systems gradually changed, the sex organs also gradually changing over millions of years and at every stage of development the dino bird was able to thrive in its enviroment and mate and reproduce healthy offspring. ???
As for the meal I ate three weeks ago, thats not a fair analogy. A scientist looking for transitional fossils is not looking for the equivalent of the particular meal that I ate three weeks ago, he's just looking for one meal that any one of the 6 billion people on earth ate in the past year or so, a much less daunting task.
All he needs is a single fossil find for a single species of any organism on earth, it's not nearly so daunting as finding one meal from a specific person.
As for me not applying the word random correctly I may be wrong but I don't think I once mentioned the word 'random' in this thread until this post in relation to thermodynamics, a correct application I may add. Please show me where I keep using the word random or am showing signs of misunderstanding it???
Regarding mutations and whether they are passed on or not I would say I understand this area pretty well, for a layman at least. The best known example of a 'positive' mutation in the scientific literature is that of the Sickle Cell, and in Africa this particular mutation has spread as it's immunises the sufferer against Malaira, thus it's a trait that been passed down through succesive generations.
It should be pointed out however that sickle cell is a life threatening disease and that it doesn't actually provide protection as such, its just that red blood cells in a sicle cell sufferer are so diseased that the malaria virus cannot incubate in them. The life expectancy for an adult male malaria sufferer is 42 years, so hardly a positive mutation but hey this all the best one that scientiest have!
You mentioned earlier tha DNA sequences can occur that were not there before. Can you provide an example of a 'beneficial' mutation that has occured in this manner? I'm not talking a sickle cell type damagin mutation here, just a purely positive change in an organism that resulted from new DNA being added?
It shouldn't be hard to name one, actually there should be untold billions of examples seeing as the entirety of life on earth has evolved in this way so I'd love to hear you name a dozen or so.
Finally I hope you don't see this debate as antagonistic or hostile, I love debating this stuff, I find it intellectually stimulating and it's a pleasure to meet someone as knowledgeble as yourself who just happens to sit on the other side of the fence to me. I respect you views, although I disagree with them, but what fun would life be if we were all the same anyways ;)
fukking hell, this shitt wasn't in my disney world of knowledge encyclopedia's
Bilbo, don't take offence to this mate but i'd always thought of you as a bit of a thick kunt. Nice chap, funny but a chip short of a butty so to speak...only kidding mate :-X.
I can now happily admit that I was wrong. ;D
It takes borderline genius intelligence to come out with some of the flannel you are chucking out on here. :appl:
Seriously though. You're a smart chap aintcha!? Either that or you have too much time on your hands to do nothing than research stuff on the internet/in books. :cwm15:
One thing is for sure. I wouldn't like to play trivial pursuit with you for money mate ;D
ha I like to think of myself as a something of a free speaking and independently minded maverick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Munky
I rarely take myself seriously, especially when talking about boxing which to me is my football (soccer for yanks) and I like to talk to you guys like I would if I was talking to you in a pub, but I do have a serious side too. I got all A's for my A Levels and then dropped out of uni in my first year to work as a linen porter in a hotel :-\
So intelligent, just not very bright ;D
Whoever is really interested in this stuff should read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. That book is a total freak show when it comes to analyzing this sort of stuff.... You can find the e-book PDF in the sharing programs. I found it on bearshare so if anyone is like, totally desperate for it, I can probably e-mail it, just send me a PM or something.
I quite like Dawkins stuff, not read the Selfish Gene but I've read the Blind Watchmaker and his latest work The God Delusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizaster
He can be quite funny at times, and some of his analysis is excellent. He certainly makes a mockery of Thomas Aquianus' Arguments for the Existence of God when he asks us to concieve of the smelliest individual imaginable and then argues that the most smelliest would have to exist in reality else he would not be most smelly person imaginable as a real person slightly less smelly is actually more smelly than a smellier person who only exists in fantasy. :o ;D
And I do find his contempt for Christians quite hilarious at times. When he tells a story about one of his science colleages being asked a morality question for example the scientist suggested they consult with a theologian. 'Why a theologian' Dawkins asks, 'Why not the gardener or the Chef?!' :D
He is a funny guy certainly and his critique against some of the more longstanding 'evidences' for belief in God are pretty devastating but he fails on two counts. Firstly he only attacks age old theological arguments to disprove God. His debunking of religious arguments from 900 years ago is like a creationist proving evolution is false by exposing the Piltdown Man fraud or demolishing Lamark's theory of inheritence through acquired characteristics, meangingless as both science and religios arguments have moved on since then.
His second shortcoming is that the exact same methodology he uses to 'disprove' God he is guilty of following that same flawed methodology in his own arguments.
He talks of cranes and skyhooks suggesting belief in God is a skyhook, literally pulling a belief out of thin air wheras he believes that science should work from the ground up like a crane.
How ironic then that he believes the universe itself came from nothing at all, for no reason and with no purpose, if that isn't a skyhook I don't know what is ???
And then he also completely fails to justify why a crane solution is more scientifically likely than a skyhook solution. I mean sure, as a scientist he will of course hope to find a naturalistic biological explanation for the origin of life, BUT if there isn't one and life really was the product of planned intelligent design, then no amount of wishing thinking or dogmatic belief in the divinty of sciene will alter that one iota.
He also uses a wonderful sleight of hand mathematical calculation to 'prove' mathematically that life must exist on other planets, as even with odds of 100,000,000 to 1 against, there are more than enough planets in the universe so that even allowing for such long odds, with an almost infinite number of planets to play around with it must be a virtual mathematical certainy that life exists on many planets in the universe, thousands in fact.
This is all very convincing on the surface but it presupposes that evolution is true. That is by giving odds of 100,000,000 to 1 he's still basically saying that evolution occurred.
However if life was a product of intelligent design and didn't evolve from non organic materials then the probability of life arising by chance is 0 and of course 100,000,000 times 0 is still 0. ^-^
A good read, I can see from the Amazon reviews though that it doesn't convert anyone in either direction. He is like most Christians in fact, preaching to the converted, athiests see in his work a dynamite rebutall of all things divine whilst Christians merely shrug and dismiss the whole book as nothing but hate and nonsense.
I recommend people read him though, he's by far the most famouse devotee of evolutionary theory in its present forms and should most certainly be read, although I think people should also read the counter argument, Dawkins God by Allister McGrath being but one example.
Bilbo,
In those 6000 plus posts you must hold the Saddo's record for most words typed
by miles.
You saying I can go on a bit? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
What can I say once I start typing it just flows out of me, I'm like a dam that's full to maximum capacity and then bursts. But I like to think it's quality as well as quantity. 8)
I see you have climbed two places in the rankings and are now rated higher than O'Sullivan, fair play to you :D
Thanks alot.
Ive had a pretty unsettling week though. Played shit in China and found out my house has been wrecked by the floods.
Nothing that a few prayers to God wont sort out.
I'll reply one last time - i promised myself i wouldn't because I'm arguing here that theres no evidence which conclusively proves evolution is not possible whereas you're arguing that you somehow know it's wrong and you're advertising it as if all scientists are evil and anti-god which I can't help but to take personally. But a have a few simple answers for you so here they are.
One - the big bang theory has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. As I said this before the theory of the big bang is a theory of how life might have been created based on physics, astronomy etc and the theory of evolution is based on biology and observations of processes seen happening in the world today and the fossil record. Evolution is a process postulated to effect living organisms so that's where it starts - not before that. I'm not a physicist so I won't argue an in depth knowledge and support of the big bang theory although i won't argue against it either.
Two- an animal survives for millions of years between one form and another because it is many different forms. A change in response to a selection pressure. If the selection is too severe and too fast then yes it can become extinct and that has been known to happen. If a few survive then their offspring are more likely too carry whatever trait helped them survive hence the favourable trait is selected for. We define a species as becoming a new species when it can no longer have viable offspring naturally with it's predecessor. For example I think a donkey and a horse can have a foal but that foal will be infertile so donkeys and horses are different species. Essentially a new species is a way for humans to conceptualize that they will no longer exchange genetic information - not necessarily a measure of the actual extent of physical difference between organisms.
The idea is that often different traits will isolate organisms from each other either geographically or behaviourally - that way small changes in their reproductive system will result from either more mutation or hormonal changes induced by differences in diet etc.
Three - This came up before and I don't think I explained myself very well so I'll try again. A new gene CAN occur in an organism that was not in the parents. This can happen due to crossing over as a natural part of meiosis or mutation caused by a mutagen very early in development - at the embryogenic stage. Even some viruses function by inserting their own DNA into a cell and allowing it to remain dormant until something activates it. This is what happens with the Herpes virus which is why people who get cold sores will get then several times in their lives because the virus has integrated into their DNA in the cells of that area and will be induced to be active by an environmental factor eg stress.
Four - even if you can only accept different genes being turned on and off that can be pretty dramatic. Just look at your butterfly example. All through the life cycle from the stage of caterpillar to butterfly the organism will have the same DNA. The code does not change. The expression of the code does change - genes are turned on and off, up and down regulated by transcription factors, phosphorylation, methylation etc etc.
Plants also have huge amounts of non coding DNA or DNA not containing genes in their genome. This DNA may be changed to coding DNA to create additional variation never seen phenotypically before. In a way it favours the idea that plants could evolve gradually to other forms. The idea is NOT that algae suddenly grew legs one day and the first 4 legged mammal emerged from the swamps. The idea is that many other intermediate forms existed between them which were (and still are - many still exist) different species. Actually a LOSS of function of many genes occurs also not just a gain of function which also makes this more realistic to me. It means many things have changed rather than just appeared.
I decided to study plants because i hate killing animals and because plants have very sophisticated biochemical functions which are interesting once you start to learn about them - even if they don't look that amazing. For example plants can photosynthesize, which is way above anything a single human cell can do. It's easy to assume that humans are the most functionally sophisticated creatures because we're intelligent but that just means that we've evolved organs and cell types which allow us to be more active as a whole organism. At the single cell level we are LESS sophisticated.
I think your comments about Dawkins are part of your reason for being so anti-evolution. I can see you are offended by him the same way I struggle with the idea that you think scientists would invent the idea of evolution just to be anti-god.
I don't believe evolution disproves god. At the same time I don't think he should have to consult with a theologist. Biologists are fundamentally theologists of the biological world so talking to a theologist about his theories when he can already discuss his ideas with other biologists and be rigorously scrutinized - seems redundant.
His job is not to make his theories fit in with Christianity - or any religion for that matter since Christianity is one of many and selecting one that is more credible than another would be an endless subjective debate.
His job is to look at the world and the physical evidence he sees and come up with a way to explain it. If he consults with a Christian theologist he is biasing himself towards ideas to support a belief rather than to be objective about what is most likely or possible from the evidence. This goes against the grain of all good scientists. We randomize all our experiments to avoid all bias including our own - to deliberately introduce it is absurd.
the big bang theory didn't happen. it's like a building collapsing to form new ones. you can't randomly form life.
As I said before evolution is not the big bang theory. Also saying you dislike the theory is not enough to disprove it. You need proof you can't randomly form new life to say you can't randomly form new life. I've never seen a million dollars but that doesn't mean it's not out there! Really the odds of any of us ever being that rich are pretty low but sometimes the improbable happens.
I like to think a higher power of some kind had something to do with it but I can't say for a fact that it couldn't be random either.
you haven't read my posts, hun. evolution may have happened, but since it violates all the laws of science, someone up there had a hand in it. and if the bbt did happen to form life, that same someone saw to that, too.
based on the same simple laws of sicence, it's easier to disprove the bb as the start of life than to prove it.
You haven't read my posts at all hun :) - the big bang theory is not what we're really discussing here. We're not even discussing whether or not a higher power exists - and I think something does although I won't say it is exactly nailed down by any religion - we're discussing macro evolution.
The simple principles of science are you can either 100 % prove or disprove something or it remains as a theory which can be backed up x amount. Scientists are not supposed to be subjective in their final conclusions without proof Von.
That's the conundrum here - people think scientists favour an outcome. We'd be much happier if we could disprove a hypothesis rather than have a Q remaining and have to call the idea that best fits what we observe a theory. if it was possible to prove a god created life at this point in time you'd have a few very happy scientists.
Hey Sharla, glad to see you are still alive on this thread. Please don't take any of this personally I never meant to imply that scientists in general or you specifically were evil or that you are a liar ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharla
You post was interesting, to be honest your knowledge of biological processes far exceeds mine as I have no biological qualifications. My interest resides purely within the creation evolution debate and so I think we are both debating each other with only a limited understanding of the other's area of knowledge.
You are absolutely right in that I am not a fan of Richard Dawkins but you are wrong to think that creation and evolution are even remotely compatible. Ironically the ones who understand this best are not religious leaders and Christians in general but evolutionists like Dawkins.
Even the most casual glance at the fundamental beliefs of Christianity shows that it is simply not compatible at all with evolution in the molecule to man sense.
The bible say sin (and therefore death) entered into the world as a result of Adam's transgression. If we evolved then death was not only present long before Adam, but was also the necessary means by which God brought us into being, the seemingly mindless deaths of millions upon millions of organisms over hundreds of millions of years culminated in man being brought into the world.
I also disagree with your statement that the Big Bang and evolution are seperate. They are not. According to evolutionary theory life emerged from non life. We are the product of a purely material universe and ultimately come from star dust. The two theories are intertwined and cannot be seperated.
If the Big Bang theory is not true (in as much as it was an unguided purely materialistic event) then evolution cannot be true either. The whole purpose of evolution is to attempt to find a solution to how life could have formed by purely chemical and physical processes without design and intervention from any intelligent designer.
If the early earth enviroment as predited by the Big Bang theory is not correct then evolution fails at the first hurdle.
It seems to me that the source of disagreement between you and myself is that you always equate natural selection, adaptation etc with macro evolution and they are not the same thing.
Everything you have put in your posts I have agreed with. I do not disagree with a single one of your points, what I am arguing is that none of those points constitute macro evolution in a molecule to man sense.
I certainly don't dispute that organisms can change over time, it is an observable fact, completely undisputed. In fact a proper understanding of Christianty necessitates this kind of change, if creatures couldn't adapt the world would have long ceased to be habitable for us as everything would just die out the moment their enviroments changed.
In order for life to continue to exist organisms NEED to be able to change.
Where I disgaree, as I have said many times is that this adaptation to enviroment by natural selection is NOT the catalyst for the development and evolution of all life on earth.
In other words I believe that each animal and plant kind were created seperately and did not evolve from each other. They can change and adapt to their enviroment but subject to certain restrictions and limitations.
They cannot, no matter how much time or how many generations are allowed can ever develop into a seperate kind of organism, I don't mean species ( I believe dogs and wolves share the same ancestor, as do horses, donkeys and maybe zebra's etc).
Moreover I don't believe this because of religious bias, I believe this in the light of the scientific evidence that we have available. My belief in God came AFTER my disbelief in evolution.
Interesting Bilbo - but this is the definition of evolution in Wilkipedia and as it has always been taught to me - distinct from the big bang theory.
In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences (genetic variation) between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
As for macro evolution you can check all the definitions in the following google search result - none mention the big bang theory:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...ition&ct=title
In some specific parts of the bible you could argue that the theory of evolution goes against religion but it doesn't mean it can't be interpreted metaphorically or in the sense that there was more to the story than could be put into words. Even if evolution was proven correct it would not disprove religion just how literally it is interpreted.
Why do you insist the big bang theory must be true for evolution to be real? That to me makes no sense at all. Even if the first life forms were formed by a higher power there's no reason why they couldn't be influenced by the environment and natural selection can't take place.
Really where can you conclusively say that the environment is not at some higher level controlled by a higher power. What is to say that evolution could not be a tool used by god to shape the earth.
I am not an expert on the bible but I would think all things written can mean different things and be taken in different ways as explained in the last thread by Andre.
I'm not sure that death is mindless although I'm not in a hurry to die. You could say that organic matter is recycled into the organisms which subsist from the last. Death is recycled into life. I know it's not a Christian thing to believe in reincarnation but you would believe souls go somewhere after death so why would that be mindless? Why would it not just be a part of a journey?
Perhaps because you don't believe any organism has a soul except for humans? Perhaps we come to disagree again at the very first point we disagreed on. I feel - in a totally unprovable way - that animals and perhaps plants too have souls - of some kind although perhaps my definition of a soul is not identical to a Christian one.
What if all the organisms before the time of humans were to 'die' and have one soul existing both in the physical and spiritual world for all that time evolving with a particular purpose and that was god? Evolution could still occur and a higher power would have still created life.
I don't know that there would be only one original life form but I don't see any proof that there wasn't either as many organisms are able to reproduce asexually - without a mate.
I guess I object to the idea that people can say something IS or IS NOT correct without proof and our feelings/beliefs are not proof. Seriously as a race can we ever expect to fully understand something as big as the creation of life. I think people are foolish saying that something definitely happened in a particular way and there's no more to the story. Humans just don't have the mental capacity to fully understand or know everything and we're being silly thinking it can be summarized by any text book or bible. There will always be plenty we don't know. I think scientists know that. We just form a hypothesis and hope someone can either prove or disprove them to advance our knowledge.
Hey Sharla :coolclick: for your continuing participation in this debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharla
I think it's fair to say we will always disagree but I don't understand how you seem to think I'm being dogmatic but that you are not?
You see I do agree with your own point below
I think people are foolish saying that something definitely happened in a particular way and there's no more to the story.
but as I see it, I'm not violating this point any more than you are. My belief is that all creatures and plants on this earth were created seperately from each other, your belief is that they all evolved ultimately from one single organism and so all of life is descended ultimately from one single cell.
You object to me saying that I don't believe your view of macro evolution is correct and you see that as dogmatic and foolish, yet you don't see your objection to my belief as dogmatic and foolish.
You say i should accept that life may not have occured the way I see it, but you seem to believe that life definitely occured the way you see it.
That's just totally inconsistant. If I sound dogmatic or forceful at times it is because I am conscious of the fact that the scientific establishment allows only for their own particular view to be considered.
In America humanists are constantly going through the law courts to get any mention of intelligent design removed from the classroom altogether. In places such as Kansas the legal ruling flip flops in favour of either side every few months it seems.
If science is to be as you put it unbiased and to allow for debate where a hypothesis can be put forward and tested then all interperations need to be put on the table.
I am not against the teaching of evolution at all, I just believe that the alternative intelligent design should also be taught and both thories subject to critical analysis.
The present situation is tantamount to an indoctrination whereby macro evolution alone can be taught as the answer to the question 'where did we come from?'.
I'm not saying that it definitely occurred in any particular way - just that no one can say that it didn't and there are things we find in nature and molecular biology which DO support it. Theres a difference :)
All of this began because you called BS to everyone who claimed to have a supernatural experience or witness something they believed to be of extra-terrestrial origin. I don't go up to my Christian friends and tell than they have no right to believe what they do but you were very quick to give a lot of forum members a good lecture about what they experienced not being what they thought it was. If you want to dish it out like that you should be able to take it back.
As for what you teach in the classroom i think it's easier to say we should teach science because scientific theories do not originate from one country or race.
Wouldn't it be racist to say we are going to teach Christianity but not other religions? In multicultural societies with so many different cultures it would be impossible to teach a religion in school without leaving out some. We'd alienate people based on religion which I think is not something we really want to do.
At least evolution is a theory and when correctly taught it is put foreward as one. It is introduced as a fluid concept that is still being researched. Religion however just seems to say "THIS HAPPENED.".
I guess that's why it's left to parents to choose how much and which religion they bring their children up with. Or for adults like yourself to decide as they get older what they believe in.
Ah fair enough I didn't realise this was related to an earlier thread, can't remember what I said now but if I said something to offend you I apologise. I completely and 100% agree that you should not teach Christianity in a science class but intelligent design is at least as sperate from Christianity as the Big Bang theory is from evolution ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharla
I don't see how one theory (yours) is testable and subject to investigation but that the other theory (mine) is not. Both sides have exactly the same evidence to play with, we both have the same rocks, the same fossils, the same organisms, the same biology etc just the interperation of the evidence is different.
I don't see why belief in intelligent design is any more a belief in something that 'just happened' than is a belief in evolution?
I think as much as you criticise me for what you see as my dogmatic and preachy views, you yourself view the proposition of intelligent design with precisely the same degree of loathing and contempt making us more alike than you'd probably care to admit ;)
Anyway I think it's pointless for this debate to continue further as we are only going around in circles, as well as probably boring the pants of the rest of the Saddo members who just want to use this board to post funny youtube vids! ;D
I hope you don't see us as rivals on the board, I have complete respect for you and what you do. No two people agree on everything and usually when two people disagree on a subject it's actually because they both share the same interest and so actually have more in common than with a third member who knows or cares nothing for that particular subject.
Good luck with your studies, and I hope your knee recovers soon as well :)
Thanks Bilbo CCQuote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
I'd just like to reiterate that I'm not against intelligent design - I just don't think you can disprove macro evolution and I'm not sure how you could teach intelligent design without religion.
I'm just not against macro evolution either.
I still think if macroevolution was proven it wouldn't necessarily disprove intelligent design either.
I agree though we could debate this for eons so I'll drop it if you do :)