Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A proof against ID and Creationism
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 286 of 300 (327710)
06-30-2006 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by inkorrekt
06-29-2006 10:51 PM


Re: No creator, but science
The correct information is that the methodology you are quoting is bad. When exposing flys to hard radiation, the chances are that many mutations will occur, and any 'good' mutation or 'neutral' mutation will be hidden by the fact there are so many bad mutations.
It's sort of like baking cookies in a 5000 degree oven, and then wondering why they don't turn out very good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by inkorrekt, posted 06-29-2006 10:51 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by inkorrekt, posted 07-08-2006 2:05 AM ramoss has replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 287 of 300 (329774)
07-08-2006 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by ramoss
06-30-2006 9:13 AM


Re: No creator, but science
Does it mean that the genes are destroyed by the powerful radiations? Even under controlled conditions, useful mutant is still evading the observer. In nature, what causes mutations as well as natural selection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by ramoss, posted 06-30-2006 9:13 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by ReverendDG, posted 07-08-2006 2:18 AM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 289 by ramoss, posted 07-08-2006 7:05 AM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 297 by Wounded King, posted 07-24-2006 5:54 AM inkorrekt has replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 288 of 300 (329778)
07-08-2006 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by inkorrekt
07-08-2006 2:05 AM


Re: No creator, but science
Does it mean that the genes are destroyed by the powerful radiations? Even under controlled conditions, useful mutant is still evading the observer. In nature, what causes mutations as well as natural selection?
radiation wouldn't i tihnk destroy genes it would mutate them quickly and more likely harmfully, but radiation testing doesn't show how it would work naturally, i mean we are bombarding animals with radation, its to show how outside forces cause mutation.
as for the other part go read any site on evolution, they explain what causes mutation and what NS is and does..
sorry, but i'd think you'd know this stuff by now
(if this is really OT admins, i'll try to stop with it then)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by inkorrekt, posted 07-08-2006 2:05 AM inkorrekt has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 289 of 300 (329807)
07-08-2006 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by inkorrekt
07-08-2006 2:05 AM


Re: No creator, but science
Not quite. Hsrd radiation causes many many mutations, and there are certainly a very good chance that any neutral or beneficial mutations will be mask by the harmful ones. Variation isn't only caused by radiation you know. There is also variation due to the way the DNA splits during the formation of eggs and sperm.
The very many mutations that radiation causes will show enough detrimental effects in such a high percentage of the offspring that the other factor needed for evolution won't have time to occur. That is 'NATURAL SELECTION'. Under normal situations, there are maybe a handful of mostly neutral mutations in an offspring. There then is a 'selection' factor where minor advantages that help survivial/reproduction are 'selected' and minor/major disadvantages to survival/reproduction (in comparison) are filtered out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by inkorrekt, posted 07-08-2006 2:05 AM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by inkorrekt, posted 07-22-2006 6:01 PM ramoss has replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 290 of 300 (334326)
07-22-2006 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by ramoss
07-08-2006 7:05 AM


Re: No creator, but science
How does nature select the useful mutations from bad ones? What is the control mechanism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by ramoss, posted 07-08-2006 7:05 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by DrJones*, posted 07-22-2006 6:05 PM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 292 by ramoss, posted 07-22-2006 8:50 PM inkorrekt has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 291 of 300 (334329)
07-22-2006 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by inkorrekt
07-22-2006 6:01 PM


Re: No creator, but science
What is the control mechanism?
Death
How does nature select the useful mutations from bad ones?
If the mutation prevents the organism from reproducing, then it is not passed on.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by inkorrekt, posted 07-22-2006 6:01 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by inkorrekt, posted 07-23-2006 7:05 PM DrJones* has replied
 Message 295 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2006 9:59 PM DrJones* has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 292 of 300 (334403)
07-22-2006 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by inkorrekt
07-22-2006 6:01 PM


Re: No creator, but science
The abilty to reproduce. Those mutations that promote the ability of an individual to pass on it's genes to the next generations are 'selected for' over neutral mutations, or mutations that decrease the ability to pass on those genes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by inkorrekt, posted 07-22-2006 6:01 PM inkorrekt has not replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 293 of 300 (334602)
07-23-2006 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by DrJones*
07-22-2006 6:05 PM


Re: No creator, but science
How do we explain random choice, mutations and sexual reproduction?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by DrJones*, posted 07-22-2006 6:05 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by DrJones*, posted 07-23-2006 7:08 PM inkorrekt has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 294 of 300 (334603)
07-23-2006 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by inkorrekt
07-23-2006 7:05 PM


Re: No creator, but science
mutations
DNA does not always replicate perfectly, there are many factors that can cause this to happen, these impferct replications are mutations.
sexual reproduction
Well when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much, they fuck.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by inkorrekt, posted 07-23-2006 7:05 PM inkorrekt has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 295 of 300 (334659)
07-23-2006 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by DrJones*
07-22-2006 6:05 PM


Re: No creator, but science
What is the control mechanism?
Death
Actually it involves both death and reproduction -- ones that can't survive die, ones that can reproduce make the next generation.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by DrJones*, posted 07-22-2006 6:05 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by ramoss, posted 07-23-2006 10:06 PM RAZD has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 296 of 300 (334663)
07-23-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by RAZD
07-23-2006 9:59 PM


Re: No creator, but science
Earlier, it was claimed that with the use of hard radation, flys would ont speciate.
However, through the use of selective breeding in the lab, they WERE able to create two species of flys that could not bread with each other.
They would have sterility in the male offspring of the hybrids.
From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2006 9:59 PM RAZD has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 297 of 300 (334745)
07-24-2006 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by inkorrekt
07-08-2006 2:05 AM


Re: No creator, but science
The main point that the anti-evolution side continually miss is that the point of most experiments where flies are subjected to hard radiation is to damage genes not to produce beneficial mutations.
Hard radiation can produce deleterious mutations which can be subsequently identified in later generations, Wieschaus and Volhard's seminal screen looked at mutants showing in the F3 progeny of a mutagenised population in order to identify embryonic lethals and genes whose mutation lead to the disruption of normal patterns of cuticle development. I'm not sure if radiation was actually used for this screen, chemical mutagenesis seems more common in the literature.
Given that these experiments are not designed to look for beneficial mutations or to produce new species I do wonder why creationists et, al. continually bring them up as having 'failed' to do so.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by inkorrekt, posted 07-08-2006 2:05 AM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by inkorrekt, posted 09-30-2006 6:24 PM Wounded King has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 298 of 300 (338756)
08-09-2006 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by bkelly
09-27-2005 9:57 PM


Re: Really silly question
The answer: Religious faith is evil. It is the greatest cause of harm this world has ever known.
the problem with your logic is that you are associating the actions of a few with the actions of all, or rather, that if one person is like this, then all are.
faith is neither inherently evil or good. it just is. it is what the people do with their faith. some choose to blow others up. others, like mother teresa, choose to help people.
so not only has faith been the source of many of the world's problems, it has been the source of many of mankind's attempts at humanity, at charity, and at being a good person, overall.
some say science is evil. why? the a-bomb. but, like faith, science is neither evil nor good. it is what the people do with it. science has helped us eradicate (at least for now) several diseases, such as smallpox, or the now unheard of polio (in the US). In the wrong hands, it leads to death and destruction, such as with Saddam's chemical warfare against the Kurds, or Hitler's systematic (attempted) destruction of the jewish people.
is science evil, then? it's killed more people in this century alone (well, the last one technically, I'm still stuck in thinking that this century is still the 1900s). I think the number is around 100 million. more people than have been killed by war in human history (most of which wars were started because of religion and faith).
the answer is, as I've pointed out several times is this. Faith (or science) are neither inherently evil or good. the important thing to remember is what the people, the PEOPLE, did with their faith (or science). Faith and science only become evil when used incorrectly by people, and only become good when used correctly by people. so it is the action, not the philosphy that is inherently evil or good.
I know this was briefly touched on by nwr, and I also realize that this is off topic, and that this thread, or this portion of it at any rate, is old. so if anyone else covered this, well, it's always good to have a refresher.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by bkelly, posted 09-27-2005 9:57 PM bkelly has not replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 299 of 300 (353323)
09-30-2006 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Wounded King
07-24-2006 5:54 AM


Re: No creator, but science
What is the point in carrying out mutations if they are not for creating new mutants?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Wounded King, posted 07-24-2006 5:54 AM Wounded King has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 300 (353328)
09-30-2006 6:29 PM


And on that humerous note...
it is time to close.
Witching Hour Folk.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  • Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024