Evolution, Fact or Fiction? - Page 13

bns · 07-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charbucks

By external pressure do you mean things like growing longer arms over time due to the need to reach things, or do you mean factors in the environment that cause DNA to change? There are a lot of mutagens out there that do directly affect DNA, but I'm not sure about the first situation.

I don't really know what pressures. I'm just saying that I think there's something at work that hasn't been considered (at least that I know of). Very few things in this world are actually random, and I don't believe genetic mutation is random either. I think it's merely so complex that we haven't figured out how to predict it yet.

hackle577 · 07-06-2007

Try this.

Radiation is the only thing I see that is close to an external force.

yaaarrrgg · 07-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by bns

I don't really know what pressures. I'm just saying that I think there's something at work that hasn't been considered (at least that I know of). Very few things in this world are actually random, and I don't believe genetic mutation is random either. I think it's merely so complex that we haven't figured out how to predict it yet.

That's a really interesting idea. I think it's certainly physically possible.

Another mechanism could be the same thing that controls gene expression. For instance:

DNA -> RNA -> Protein -> envronment affects protein shape -> protein binds to gene expression/supporession site -> gene turns on/off

The additional step would be that this would affect gene selection in the next generation ... IOW it could affect the gametes and DNA could be smart enough to reprogram itself ... like a feedback loop. Wow that would be cool ...

rjwood · 07-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by bns

I don't really know what pressures. I'm just saying that I think there's something at work that hasn't been considered (at least that I know of). Very few things in this world are actually random, and I don't believe genetic mutation is random either. I think it's merely so complex that we haven't figured out how to predict it yet.

It seems to me that anything and everything outside human control is random. Isn't that what the adage; ' the advantage humans have over other living species is the ability to reason!' means? I'm sitting here looking out my back door at a tree. I know we can reason that the growth of that tree is predictable, and whoever planted it where it is is not random but if we take human interference and reason away, isn't it all random? But, then again we are here, and if that is by chance, then doesn't our ability to reason slap everything else in the face? So, after saying all that, I believe it's all random - even us. What if our deductive reasoning is total chaos to an anthropologist from another planet?

Jasper84 · 07-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by hackle577

Radiation is the only thing I see that is close to an external force.

And people with tiny syringes!(dont take to literal) How would we be able to do stuff like genetic manipulation if we could not be a external effect on dna

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjwood

It seems to me that anything and everything outside human control is random.

Most things outside human control are not random! And what constitutes 'in our control'? Is a car engine accidentally left somewhere in our control? How about those mirrors on the moon. That is why there are physical laws! Even if it were random, there could be dependencies. (less random one could say, although there is no such thing as a uniform random real variable)
An anthropologist aware of situations similar to our own would see similar/the same physical laws and dependencies, and be able to recognize them. Why would his logic be different?

rjwood · 07-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper84

Most things outside human control are not random! And what constitutes 'in our control'? Is a car engine accidentally left somewhere in our control? How about those mirrors on the moon. That is why there are physical laws! Even if it were random, there could be dependencies. (less random one could say, although there is no such thing as a uniform random real variable)
An anthropologist aware of situations similar to our own would see similar/the same physical laws and dependencies, and be able to recognize them. Why would his logic be different?

I was speaking in the natural sense as if humans didn't exist or at least didn't interfere with nature.

hackle577 · 07-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper84

How would we be able to do stuff like genetic manipulation if we could not be a external effect on dna

.

Yeah I thought human intervention was kind of of obvious, so I didn't bother mentioning it. :-)

AlcoholSoluble · 07-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

But the difficulty does not stop with the origin of life. Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?

That argument is kinda dead.

The parts weren't useless. They just served some other purpose they no longer do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the article

It’s always dangerous to base your argument on some version of “scientists have never found X” (with X in this case being components of a complex structure existing and serving a function before the rest of the components showed up). That’s because those darn scientists keep making discoveries. If you want to say they “have never found . . . ,” you’d better understand that what you really mean is “they haven’t found it yet.”

Which brings us to the latest discovery in evolution: DNA needed to make synapses, the sophisticated junctions between neurons, in none other than the lowly sea sponge. Considered among the most primitive and ancient of all animals, sea sponges have no nervous system (or internal organs of any kind, for that matter), notes Todd Oakley, assistant professor in the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. But, he adds, they “have most of the genetic components of synapses.”

See also:
What use is half an eye? - EvoWiki
New structures would be useless until fully developed - EvoWiki

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: “To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” More than a century has passed since then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary, since Darwin’s time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is even more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: “The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better.”

Previously defeated. You ought to do more research on these topics before making these arguments. Then again, that would require you to question your pathetic, untrue biblical literalist stance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

If this is so of the eye, what, then, of the human brain? Since even a simple machine does not evolve by chance, how can it be a fact that the infinitely more complex brain did? Jastrow concluded: “It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors.”

IT IS NOT RANDOM CHANCE.

That's the fallacy people who refuse to accept evolution fall for. Just remember, it is not random chance. Whatever has sex more, therefore what is fittest to survive and reproduce, is what lives on. It isn't random chance that something with a more complex nerve system is what evolved. That characteristic gave it a better ability, one way or another, to reproduce.

It isn't just random chance here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

This, among many more reasons which i am too tired to mention presently, is why i disagree with the theory of evolution. Common sense really, the intelligence in nature is so unbelievably astounding. Additionally, explosions destroy things...(<attempt at humor)

Your thoughts?? ideas??

Please tell me you don't have kids. I don't want them to be so ignorant as you are. ;_;

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

When the Bible does refer to natural phenomena, it is consistently accurate.

XD

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

Galileo himself said: “Both the Holy Scriptures and nature proceed from the Divine Word . . . Two truths can never contradict one another.” Consider the following examples.

Sourced quote? Also, even if he said it, he could have been wrong. For example... He was, if he had said that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

Supported Scientific Principles in the Bible.

In the first verse of the Bible we read: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) At one time scientists hotly debated whether there even was a beginning, or whether matter had always existed. In 1979, though, Time magazine stated: “Most astronomers now accept the theory that the universe had an instant of creation. . . . The Big Bang theory sounds very much like the story that the Old Testament has been telling all along.”

Firstly, the big bang isn't the creation described. Taken to its original language, Hebrew, the old testament uses the word Yom. That means nothing other than a literal 24-hour day. The only reason it has ever been interpreted as anything else is in an attempt to reconcile religion with contrary evidence.

Thing is, your religion is still wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

The Bible nowhere states that the sun orbits the earth.

"who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast" (Isaiah 45:18)

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm" (Psalm 93:1)

"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

In fact this part of the Bible contains many laws about cleanliness that suggest a knowledge of sanitary principles far in advance of that early time. This, of course, is what we would expect when we remember that it was God who gave them these laws.

Or that they were made by the people who made the most sense. Seriously, I'm sure most of those laws were originally made for the protection of people, and were later decided to be the "word of god" so that people would stick to them more willingly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

Hence, the objections raised by some that the Bible is contradictory or unscientific are no reason for rejecting this book as the Word of God. Most of these objections spring from a lack of understanding, and when investigated, they only add to the evidence that the Bible truly is divinely inspired.

Except that there is no god to divinely inspire it. At very least, not your god, and not the god of the bible.

Quick aside:

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

1-Life did not arise and cannot arise spontaneously from lifeless material. This is in complete agreement with scientific laws and experimental tests. The laws of statistics, the law of entropy, calculations from thermodynamics and kinetics all converge on the conclusion that spontaneous generation of life cannot occur. Older reports of spontaneous generation are given no credence since the experiments of Pasteur. In controlled experiments, it just does not happen. Examination of soil from the moon and chemical tests on the surface of Mars verify that life has not arisen on those planets.

Sourced quotes on how the idea of abiogenesis is impossible according to statistics, entropy, or thermodynamics?

Statistics: You're probably having two troubles with this. For one, you seem to be of the opinion that these are sequential, one after another trials, and not a big mass of amino acids all globbed together that were all working at the same time.

If I do 5,000 experiments myself, it might take a while. If 5,000 people do one experiment each, it will take considerably less time.

Entropy: That "degrades into chaos" bit only works in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. The earth absorbs enormous amounts of energy from the sun daily.

And you know what? You just wrote too damn much for me to even want to read. You're so mind-numbingly ignorant that it almost hurts.

Instead, I'd point you Here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

Point im trying to make: Life can only come from Life. I dont think i need to go into detail about how that happens

. Anyway, please prove otherwise.

Pasteur proved life only comes from life (law of biogenesis) - EvoWiki

The odds of life forming are incredibly small - EvoWiki

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

Well, we have to accept that there are questions which we will never have the answer too. Where did god come from?

The minds of men.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

If life evolved, how did it start?

Abiogenesis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

where did those elements come from?

Complex reactions from the matter that has always existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

All we can do is provide proof for each theory. There is at least the conception of “infinity” in science and mathematics. We can imagine infinite space, and as far as astronomers can tell, the universe may be infinite, boundless. The farther their telescopes enable them to see, the more galaxies they behold.

So why couldn't everything always have existed? Why did a god need to come create it?

(The big bang wasn't necessarily the beginning. Another theory states that matter always has been, and simply compressed itself into a singularity before exploding out.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

Then, going in the other direction, into the infinitesimally small, physicists still cannot find the ultimate particle. When the atom was discovered, it appeared simple: The atom was the indivisible particle, scientists thought. Experiments with the atom, however, have shown their theory to be a fallacy. The list of particles, or supposed particles, making up the atom has grown quite long, and the end is not yet.

So? Just because we don't know yet doesn't mean that your holy book must therefore be right because it has an answer right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

Can we not, then, conceive of a God who had no beginning—who existed forever? If it is possible, then it is our responsability to examine the evidence fully, not close our minds too all concepts. I do dont believe in evolution at this time because to me, it makes less sense then intelligent design.

Because you don't understand evolution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

How the millions of existing species came about is a question that has plagued evolutionists for a long time. For a species to be a species, it cannot interbreed with other species—even the one from which it is supposed to have developed. If progeny does result, it either is sterile (as in the case of mules) or dies before reaching maturity. According to the science magazine Discover, geneticists now say they have found “a rescue gene, a slight fault in the species barrier” that, while weakening the flies that carried it, enabled some hybrid males of a fruit-fly species to survive. “However, the gene didn’t completely break through the species barrier; it couldn’t render the males fertile,” notes the article. This raises a “troublesome question,” says Discover. “If the parents that carry it don’t benefit from it, and offspring that inherit it can’t pass it on, how could the gene possibly have evolved

They can still breed with the other intermediates up until a certain point. Evolution doesn't mean that a monkey had a baby and it was perfectly human. First off, the modern monkey isn't what humans came from. Both humans and modern apes came from common ancestors. Secondly, it's that there were small changes that occurred between that original primate and the modern human.

At a certain point, the posts got too stupid, ignorant, or just plain boring for me to bear.

bns · 07-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjwood

It seems to me that anything and everything outside human control is random. Isn't that what the adage; ' the advantage humans have over other living species is the ability to reason!' means? I'm sitting here looking out my back door at a tree. I know we can reason that the growth of that tree is predictable, and whoever planted it where it is is not random but if we take human interference and reason away, isn't it all random? But, then again we are here, and if that is by chance, then doesn't our ability to reason slap everything else in the face? So, after saying all that, I believe it's all random - even us. What if our deductive reasoning is total chaos to an anthropologist from another planet?

Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "random". I don't disagree with your point at all. By non-random, I mean that it's predictable and we can identify the factors involved in it's occurance. You could certainly still call it random in a different sense of the word.

metaphor- · 07-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlcoholSoluble

Previously defeated. You ought to do more research on these topics before making these arguments. Then again, that would require you to question your pathetic, untrue biblical literalist stance.

Please tell me you don't have kids. I don't want them to be so ignorant as you are. ;_;

And you know what? You just wrote too damn much for me to even want to read. You're so mind-numbingly ignorant that it almost hurts.

At a certain point, the posts got too stupid, ignorant, or just plain boring for me to bear.

Who the hell do you think you are? Ignorance means your mind is closed too all the possibilities. I started this thread to discuss evolution and learn. You should read the forum rules about proper proper respect before blindly trying to insult people. Trolling has no place here. Your own admittance that you never even read what I posted or the entire thread just proves your own ignorance and foolish pride. Just because I may believe differently then others, i don't insult them for doing so(unless they deserve it). Respect peoples choices man, its the key for having other people respect you. You have lost any potential merit or respect in my eyes just for your blind outburst of stupidity.

You obviously have no clue that who you are as a person matters in life as opposed to just what you believe. The day I ignorantly stop listening to people and trying to reason is the day I will become a mindless troll. That will never happen, I will always be willing to have an intelligent conversation with people who have at least some sense of human decency. You have no right do judge me of ignorance when you are blinded by your own. I do not view myself as better than anyone else, no matter how uneducated or disrespectful they are in turn. You may be a good person, but you certainly don't want to be perceived as one by your actions. Who are you to judge that one person is better than another, one religion or race is better than another, one belief is better than another, your previous response smacks of prejudice.

bns · 07-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlcoholSoluble

Previously defeated. You ought to do more research on these topics before making these arguments. Then again, that would require you to question your pathetic, untrue biblical literalist stance.

And you know what? You just wrote too damn much for me to even want to read. You're so mind-numbingly ignorant that it almost hurts.

At a certain point, the posts got too stupid, ignorant, or just plain boring for me to bear.

Geez, man. I don't particularly agree with metaphor, but he has been open to serious debate and has been civil with everybody. Disagreement does not preclude politeness.

AlcoholSoluble · 07-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by bns

Geez, man. I don't particularly agree with metaphor, but he has been open to serious debate and has been civil with everybody. Disagreement does not preclude politeness.

It's not that I'm trying to be impolite. I'm just being honest here.

latecomer · 07-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by bns

Geez, man. I don't particularly agree with metaphor, but he has been open to serious debate and has been civil with everybody. Disagreement does not preclude politeness.

Yes, but you have to admit he does have a point about metaphor's, how shall I put it, slight deficit in knowledge and understanding of evolutionary theory, and science in general, apparently.
I might be mistaken but I feel a certain undertone of exasperation in AlcoholSoluble's post; a feeling I, myself, am not wholly unfamiliar with, but I usually can't be bothered to post in arguments at that level.
One might argue that it is presumptuous on metaphor's part to post on this subject without, seemingly, any grounding in the theories that underlie it. And positively arrogant, I would venture, to proclaim that these theories are nonsense.
One should not expect to be educated on a forum; that's something you take care of yourself. First get educated, then come and have your say.

Jasper84 · 07-07-2007

AlcoholSoluble might not have been very diplomatic, but he did get many of the points. (and some of those were discussed already, but a good repeat at that) Even people that do believe in evolution often misstate thing so that they do not get 'it is not random' right.
(of course evolution does not pick the perfect organism for things, some individuals get lucky.)
BTW Welcome AlcoholSoluble!

metaphor- · 07-07-2007

why would i post a thread on evolution if i didn't know much about it? i did it to learn, not be called ignorant and to be insulted. Much of whats been said on this thread Im studying and reviewing, i dont like being blind to whats around me...It's just, dang...so much information!! Taking longer than ID like to go over and study,its hard when one has a busy life. And personally, i believe the educating process never ends and its made richer by voicing your opinions when you have them.

bns · 07-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlcoholSoluble

It's not that I'm trying to be impolite. I'm just being honest here.

You could have easily argued the points without calling him ignorant and stupid. I don't have a problem with you refuting his arguments, even vehemently doing it. But the personal insults are out of place.

AlcoholSoluble · 07-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper84

BTW Welcome AlcoholSoluble!

Hi.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

Ignorance means your mind is closed too all the possibilities.

ig·no·rance
n.
The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

Since your views seem to be at least one of those three things, I am only trying to help them. I am sorry, I do sometimes come off as quite harsh in my arguments.

You see, you really shouldn't go assuming that I'm some closed-minded bigot or what have you. First off, being closed-minded to impossible cases... Well, yeah. Why should I be open-minded to the wrong idea? However, I am open-minded to the possibility that I am wrong; I just severely doubt it. Secondly, I have watched every single one of Kent Hovind's videos, along with several other creationist publications, all with an open mind. I almost found myself believing some of it at a point. Hovind was a very, very good speaker.

It's just a shame he was wrong. After nearly a month of being actually quite unsure on the issue, I came across a few videos that explained the case for evolution very well. I also found other sites that dissected each and every one of Hovind's arguments and chewed them to shreds, in order, no less. I wish I could find that site...

Ah. Here it is.

Perhaps you would enjoy reading these sites I have listed, and watching some of these videos:
The Blind Watch Maker Richard Dawkins 1987
YouTube - Richard Dawkins - The Big Question: Why are we here?

latecomer · 07-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

why would i post a thread on evolution if i didn't know much about it? i did it to learn, not be called ignorant and to be insulted.

If I were to post a thread on baseball or cricket, and proclaim my, currently nonexistent, opinions, I would expect to be called ignorant. It comes with the turf.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

...It's just, dang...so much information!!

Yup, and it's all gotta go into your head.

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

i believe the educating process never ends

More power to you.

qtwerp · 07-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlcoholSoluble

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaphor-

Galileo himself said: “Both the Holy Scriptures and nature proceed from the Divine Word . . . Two truths can never contradict one another.” Consider the following examples.

Sourced quote? Also, even if he said it, he could have been wrong. For example... He was, if he had said that.

Just thought you might like the original quote that metaphor- paraphrased. The letter begins on the last line of the page and goes through to page 48.

I couldn't find the whole letter on Google Books or Gutenberg, but this is the part relevant to the quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei

As therefore, the Holy Scriptures in many places not only admit but actually require a different explanation for what seems to be the literal one, it seems to me that they ought to be reserved for the last place in mathematical discussions. For they, like nature, owe their origin to the Divine Word; the former is inspired by the Holy Spirit, the latter as the fulfillment of the Divine commands; it was necessary, however in Holy Scripture, in order to accomodate itself to the understanding of the majority, to say many things which apparently differ from the precise meaning. Nature, on the contrary, is inexorable and unchangeable, and cares not whether her hidden causes and modes of working are intelligible to the human understanding or not, and never deviates on that account from her prescribed laws. It appears to me therefore that no effect of nature, which experience places before our eyes, or is the necessary conclusion derived from evidence, should be rendered doubtful by passages of Scripture which contain thousands of words admitting of various interpretations, for every sentence of Scripture is not bound by such rigid laws as is every effect of nature.
Since two truths can obviously never contradict each other, it is the part of wise interpreters of Holy Scripture to take the pains to find out the real meaning of its statemments, in accordance wtih the conclusions regarding nature which are quite certain, either from the clear evidence of sense or from necessary demonstration. As therefore the Bible, although dictated by the Holy Spirit, admits, from the reasons given above, in many passages of an interpretation other than the literal one; and as, moreover, we cannot maintain with certainty that all interpreters are inspired by God, I think it would be the part of wisdom not to allow any one to apply passages of Scripture in such a way as to force them to support, as true, conclusions concerning nature the contrary of which may afterwards be revealed by the evidence of our senses or by necessary demonstration. Who will set bounds t

07-06-2007	#242 (permalink)
hackle577 Discussion starter Join Date: May 2007 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 72	Re: Evolution, Fact or Fiction? Try this. Radiation is the only thing I see that is close to an external force. Last edited by hackle577 : 07-06-2007 at 12:06 PM.
	i am del.icio.us

07-07-2007	#254 (permalink)
Jasper84 under construction Join Date: May 2007 Location: Utrecht, the Netherlands Posts: 593	Re: Evolution, Fact or Fiction? AlcoholSoluble might not have been very diplomatic, but he did get many of the points. (and some of those were discussed already, but a good repeat at that) Even people that do believe in evolution often misstate thing so that they do not get 'it is not random' right. (of course evolution does not pick the perfect organism for things, some individuals get lucky.) BTW Welcome AlcoholSoluble!

07-07-2007	#255 (permalink)
metaphor- Sith Lord on Steroids. Join Date: May 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 295	Re: Evolution, Fact or Fiction? why would i post a thread on evolution if i didn't know much about it? i did it to learn, not be called ignorant and to be insulted. Much of whats been said on this thread Im studying and reviewing, i dont like being blind to whats around me...It's just, dang...so much information!! Taking longer than ID like to go over and study,its hard when one has a busy life. And personally, i believe the educating process never ends and its made richer by voicing your opinions when you have them.
	guinness: easy to pour and sweet as a nut!