EvC Forum: Unexpected Dates.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hanno:
[B]Really, old chap. It's elementary really. I did not want to put it quite so harsh, but since you insist that i clarify this, I will. Simmilar to Communist in Russia, Evolution today is forced down our troughts, whether we like it or not, just as Communist was forced down on the poor Russians. To you it might be a fact, but, for heaven sake, don't force it down on people that doesn't want to hear it.
*****************************************************************+

Grammar is also forced down our throats whether or not we want to hear it. The theory of gravity to. Geography for that matter goes counter to what the flat earth society "believes". Supported science is taught. Relgion should not be.
__________________________________
Chemistry and Biology is very closely related, yet it is two different subjects on school, and is hardly ever mixed in documentaries.
****************************************

Biology is ultimately chemistry. Ever heard of biochemistry? Chemists have to take classes on this subject to. Most documentaries do not go into any detail so I fail to see how this is relevant. An education in science is not built on watching television.
________________________________
Why can't Biology and Evolusion not be seperated into two different subjects as well? That way, anyone interested in nature do not have to listen to evolution if he doesn't want to. And foalla, everyone is happy.
***************************************************
Because evolution is a part of basic biology. Anyone interested in nature should actually LEARN about it rather than ommitting the parts they do not like. Allowing education standards to deteriorate and voila nobody is happy...everyone is uneducated.
________________________________________

Unlike other sciences, evolution does not contrubute very much to the modernisation of society, so why is it important anyway? Astronomy, on the other hand, will one day become very useful when we start colonizing other planets.
*****************************

LOL!!!!!!!Ever heard of biotech, the human genome project, molecular medicine...no evolution and these subjects go bye bye. Evolution contributes much more to modernasation of society than religion does. Religion keeps society from progressing because it attempts to supplant science with church dogma based on myths regardless if those myths are false.
__________________________

There is to date still no rational explination as to HOW evolution occurs in the first place. Don't tell me it's mutations. No random mutation can be positive. I'm a programmer. If someone who doesn't know a thing about computer languages come and randomly change something in my code, the chance is 99.999999999999999999999% that it will case an error. Now the human gene is a billion times more complex than my computer programs.
***********************************************

Why should I have to tell you what evolution is? Obviously if you are here to criticize it you have read up on the subject extensively and are aware of the current state of the field

Since you MUST have please show all the citations to experimental support that "no random mutation can be positive".
____________________________________________

What is more, unlike my program, each gene control many parts of the body.
**************************************

Sorry Hanno but that is incorrect thus the rest of your paragraph is also incorrect.
________________________________________________

So in the very rare occurance that a gene has a positive change, it will also have quite a few negative effects. The overall efect will be negative. Also it still has to be proven how a mutation in one animal, can be transfered to the entire specie. Usually, they disappear or fade in following generations. There probably is a nice sounding theory, but has it been proven on large animals?
**************************************

A) why would it have more meaning if it is demonstrated in a large animal versus small? DNA has the same molecular weight in both.
B) If I give you references will you read them?
_____________________________________

The process of exactly HOW evolution occures is pure speculation, and there is no experiment performed to date that successfully demonstrated this process. There is also no explanation why evolution would simply stop in some species, such as the shark and jelly fish.
********************************************************

Evolution has not stopped in sharks or jellyfish. You keep making statements that are false Hanno. Have you actually ever researched any of the subjects you are bashing or does it just feel good to make incorrect and false assertions? Are you that unsure of your beliefs that you have to misrepresent evolution?
****************************************************

Why is there not a single shred of evidence of a transitional form, both today or in the fossil records
************************************

Would that single shred mean the thousands of fossil finds? Or what do you mean by transitional? Define the term.
______________________________________

I know that the newest theory says that evolution happens in leaps, but surely not within a single generation?

*************************************************

Punctuated equilibrium is niether the newest theory nor does it propose that the "leaps" occur in a single generation....the actual theory is easily accessible if you chose to actually read what it proposes.
_________________________________

Then with all the millions of changes there was in animals, surely some of those must have been preserved? Surely, at the very least there sould be one?
********************************

Not sure what you mean here....99% of our genome and a huge number of morphological and behavioral features are shared between us and chimpanzees...this is a lot more than one (this is also just one example among thousands).
____________________________________

And when we take the evolutionary tree. You have skeleton thats 200 million years old and then one totally different 150 million years later, and then they are charted as relatives. What proof do you have of this?
*****************************************

If you would bother to learn anything about morphology you would not have to ask this.
__________________________________________

Is there still some dna left in the bones? Maybe, it evolved from something totally different, something that was never fosilized.
**************************************

In some fossils (up to about 50,000 years old) DNA has been retrieved i.e. mammoths and neandertals. The basic principles of comparative DNA analysis and morphological comparisons are the same. I also think you are mis-using the term evolved from. They are similar because they shared a common ancestor....we did not evolve from neandertals...we shared a common ancestor. Elephants did not evolve from mammoths. Loxodonta africana (African elephant), Elephas maximus (Asian elephant) and Mammuthus primigenius (woolly mammoth) evolved from a common ancestor in Africa approximately 5 million years ago.
______________________________

So there has been experiments which describe how the first molecules found in live were formed. But that is still a huge leap between organic molecules and a singe cell live form. On the transition from dead molucules, to single cell organisms, there is quite a bit on explaining to do.
********************************************
Yes, and this has nothing to do with evolution...the topic you are referring to is abiogenesis. The "huge leap" is evolution over a "huge" amount of time.
_______________________________

Let us discuss how the creatures with two sexes evolved from something that can procreate on its own. What does a creature look like with one and a halve sex? Surely this transition must have been a long process. But then why would creatures have developed two sexes in the first place, if the original form could've procreated on its own? And why two sexes, and not more?
**************************************

This is an entire research discipline...even a cursory database search will turn up hundreds of hits on this subject. As to a third sex...ever hear of hermaphrodites? C. elegans ( a worm) can reproduce sexually or clonally by self fertilization. Organisms that reproduce sexually have a huge advantage in that they can generate and transmit variation by recombination of genes. Bacteria cannot due this but supplement their clonal expansion via a (pre-sex if you will) mechanism called conjugation by which they can transfer genetic information horizontally i.e. antibiotics resistance.
__________________________________________-

Lets talk about that one thing many people that believe only in the laws of science want to avoid. Your self conciousness. Surely if you would arange (dead) atoms in some magical way, they become not become self aware?
**************************************

If a computer A.I. is developed that is self aware then dead atoms have been "magically" arranged to be self aware. Again, another entire field of research with literature you could look up and read and inform yourself on. And are you sure you are self aware

_________________________________

People that believe in the New age movement says everything, even rocks lives. In that case, I can understand. But if atoms are dead (which I believe they are)? If you could make atoms self aware, why am I, I? Why was my "awareness" born in this body, and not in another? Yes the brain is incredibly complicated, and it's programmed with several processes, BUT If I program a computer to ACT human, it doesn't mean it IS alive. It is still just a bunch of variables, unaware of itself, moving around as it was programmed to do. If that is what was going on in my brain, I would ACT self aware, but would I BE self aware? The point I'm making is the evidence of a soul. Something that can not be the result of the organisation of matter.

You can understand new agers that think rocks are alive? Since you say it is not possible and do not define your terms there is not much to say here.
____________________________
Just a bunch of thoughts. Use it, don't use it...
I look forward to your reply to them.

Oh, and I just thought of something else: The larger and complicated someting is, the less likely it is that a random change would be positive. Therefore, it can be argued, since evolution is explained by rare positive changes, it could be expected that the more complicated a creature, the slower it would evolve. But, instead, if we look up the evolution table, evolusion seems to accelerate rhe close you get to now. Why is that?
***********************************************+

What evolution table? What evidence is there that evolution is more rapid now than before? Define "more complicated". Of the 3 billion base pairs of human DNA only about 3% seems to do anthing...8% is made up of endogenous retrovirses...random mutations in those usually have no effect on phenotype and are neutral. Why would a mutation in an Alu element cause problems?

No offense but you really should research the topics you are interested in debating before stating that the answers are unknown or impossible.

Good luck with your deadline and hope to hear from you next week.

Cheers,
Mammuthus

1 online now:	PaulK
Newest Member:	popoi
Post Volume:	Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0