Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with Mutation and the Evolution of the Sexes
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 16 of 180 (458412)
02-28-2008 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Lyston
02-28-2008 7:56 PM


Lyston writes:
And then, if you reproduced with this bone change, it would be passed down to your offspring.
Your teacher was an eighteenth century evolutionist? How old are you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Lyston, posted 02-28-2008 7:56 PM Lyston has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Lyston, posted 02-28-2008 8:11 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Lyston
Member (Idle past 5825 days)
Posts: 64
From: Anon
Joined: 02-27-2008


Message 17 of 180 (458413)
02-28-2008 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Adequate
02-28-2008 7:41 PM


Er, yes. That's the pro-science Christian view. You'll find a lot of people round here telling you that. And they would add that evolution is one of the things that works.
It's not a pro-science Christian view, its the view of regular Christians who understand what the Bible is saying. People misinterpret that all the time. It doesn't say the Earth is the center of the universe, yet some claimed it did and burned the guy who said the Earth orbits the sun.
Natural selection works, yes. Adaptation works, yes. Mutations happen, yes. Evolution? That's what we are debating. Natural selection, adaptation, and mutations are all mentioned and used to support Evolution, but they are separate. The Bible says nothing against those three things, but the conflict is the idea of Evolution as a whole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2008 7:41 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-29-2008 12:05 AM Lyston has not replied

  
Lyston
Member (Idle past 5825 days)
Posts: 64
From: Anon
Joined: 02-27-2008


Message 18 of 180 (458415)
02-28-2008 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by bluegenes
02-28-2008 8:06 PM


Your teacher was an eighteenth century evolutionist? How old are you?
Um, a 2000's Biologist, but, according to you, he is of course a 200 year old man who has lived through the ages.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by bluegenes, posted 02-28-2008 8:06 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by bluegenes, posted 02-28-2008 8:15 PM Lyston has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 19 of 180 (458418)
02-28-2008 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Lyston
02-28-2008 8:11 PM


I said that because what you were describing is like the 18th century view of French evolutionist Lamarck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Lyston, posted 02-28-2008 8:11 PM Lyston has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Lyston, posted 02-28-2008 8:30 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Lyston
Member (Idle past 5825 days)
Posts: 64
From: Anon
Joined: 02-27-2008


Message 20 of 180 (458420)
02-28-2008 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by bluegenes
02-28-2008 8:15 PM


I said that because what you were describing is like the 18th century view of French evolutionist Lamarck.
And do you have something add/change/subtract from my old teacher's lecture on traits being passed down from parents to offspring?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by bluegenes, posted 02-28-2008 8:15 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2008 8:39 PM Lyston has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 21 of 180 (458422)
02-28-2008 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Lyston
02-28-2008 8:30 PM


And do you have something add/change/subtract from my old teacher's lecture on traits being passed down from parents to offspring?
Well, apart from pointing out that acquired traits are not inherited, I should also like to add a little derisive laughter.
Good grief, man, that's Lamarckism. That's not the theory of evolution at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Lyston, posted 02-28-2008 8:30 PM Lyston has not replied

  
Eclogite
Junior Member (Idle past 5846 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 22 of 180 (458423)
02-28-2008 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Lyston
02-28-2008 7:56 PM


Lamarck! Go back in your closet.
In my opinion for giraffe necks, I think of an example my teacher gave while giving a bones lesson. He said, if he attached a weight on your arm at a high pressure, your bone would accommodate to the weight in time and make changes necessary. The bone would reform in a way that dipped down as the body adapts to the change (this would occur in time, of course). And then, if you reproduced with this bone change, it would be passed down to your offspring.
This is a wholly incorrect understanding. Your teacher should be fired for putting forth an idea that was disproven a century ago. This is the concept of acquired characteristics: that features developed or enhanced during an individuals life would be transmitted to their offspring. Even Darwin considered it to be a possible mechanism for producing variation in individuals. However it is now known to be wrong. There is no means by which the germ cells (eggs and sperm) can be modified by changes to the somatic cells (the rest of the cells in the body).
I think if you have such a flawed understanding of the basics of evolution that it is not surprising you think is has errors or gaps in it. Please continue your study of the subject in an effort to remove these faulty ideas. I think then you will find many of the objections you raise simply vanish.
Although I am entirely new to this forum it seems that there are some (but by no means all) members who are willing to take the time to explain details to people who are genuinely interested in learning. Hang in there, and ask away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Lyston, posted 02-28-2008 7:56 PM Lyston has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 23 of 180 (458424)
02-28-2008 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Lyston
02-28-2008 7:56 PM


I can see dozens of genetically superiorities with such a thing as two heads. It would double fighting chance (if its a fanged type animal) and double food intake, giving more time to whatever.
So God screwed up again?
He makes rubbish animals, doesn't he? They reproduce sexually, they don't have enough heads ... is there anything this all-knowing creator of yours got right, in your opinion?
Why don't you pray for two-headed asexually reprodcing giraffes and see if God will vouchsafe you one?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Lyston, posted 02-28-2008 7:56 PM Lyston has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Lyston, posted 02-28-2008 8:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Lyston
Member (Idle past 5825 days)
Posts: 64
From: Anon
Joined: 02-27-2008


Message 24 of 180 (458426)
02-28-2008 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dr Adequate
02-28-2008 8:45 PM


You call that a screw up? He made us perfect in His eyes. But then, why haven't we evolved right? Why can't we fly and breath under water? Why only two arms when four would be more useful?
If you want to play that game, answer your own side too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2008 8:45 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2008 9:01 PM Lyston has not replied
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-29-2008 12:22 AM Lyston has not replied
 Message 34 by fallacycop, posted 02-29-2008 11:10 AM Lyston has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 25 of 180 (458429)
02-28-2008 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Lyston
02-28-2008 8:48 PM


You call that a screw up?
No. It is not I who am complaining that giraffes should have more heads. Though I admit that it would have comedy value.
He made us perfect in His eyes.
But not, apparently, in yours.
This is your cake.
Two choices lie before you.
Why can't we fly and breath under water? Why only two arms when four would be more useful?
If you believe in fiat creation, these are questions that you should be addressing to God. If he grants you the wonderous gift of four arms, two heads, and the ability to reproduce asexually, then I for one am prepared to admit that that would constitute a wonder and a sign.
If you want to play that game, answer your own side too.
Could I remind you again that it's not me who's making these complaints?
However, if you were to ask me why the products of evolution fall short of your standard of perfection, I should reply that the process of evolution, being imperfect, will not produce what is perfect, still less what you happen to think is perfect.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Lyston, posted 02-28-2008 8:48 PM Lyston has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 180 (458450)
02-29-2008 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Lyston
02-28-2008 8:09 PM


Natural selection works, yes. Adaptation works, yes. Mutations happen, yes. Evolution?
Yes, Evolution works.
That's what we are debating. Natural selection, adaptation, and mutations are all mentioned and used to support Evolution, but they are separate. The Bible says nothing against those three things, but the conflict is the idea of Evolution as a whole.
So when everything except for the Bible is saying that Evolution works, how do you know that you are not misinterpreting the Bible?
I mean, you said it yourself:
People misinterpret that all the time.
Have you considered that Evolution works and you are misinterpreting the Bible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Lyston, posted 02-28-2008 8:09 PM Lyston has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 180 (458452)
02-29-2008 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Lyston
02-28-2008 8:48 PM


You call that a screw up?
Don't you see? (reread the thread)...
If sexual evolution is a screwup for evolution, as you said:
Self replication, a process seen as a basic process found in the 'beginning', should increase chances of survival. And with its increase chance of survival, how come no animal can do that today? I consider it a genetically superior trait, something that should still be around today in things besides bacteria.
emphasis added
you also said it was "some statistical absurd chance". After that you say that actually god is responsible for it, so therefore god has "screwed up" by creating things the other way.
This lack of those superior things is the same kind of screwup for god as it is for evolution.
But, as someone trying to help, let me inform you that you have gravely misunderstood what the Theory of Evolution postulates.
Lamarckian evolution is long gone as it is an impossibility.
What the current, actual Theory of Evultion does postulate works fine and doesn't even contradict the Bible.
You can check it off along with natural selection, mutation and adaptation.
Then we can discuss where you've misinterpreted the Bible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Lyston, posted 02-28-2008 8:48 PM Lyston has not replied

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 28 of 180 (458456)
02-29-2008 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
02-28-2008 10:29 AM


LOL
From your snippet from your link:
quote:
The necessity to repair genetic damage is one of the leading theories explaining the origin of sexual reproduction.
Wow! Now that's insightful. But giving a motive for guiding evolution to produce sexual reproduction doesn't explain how it supposedly evolved.
This is even more ironic/moronic when one considers the ruckus raised about evolution being guided.
Greetings, Lyston. As you can see, evolutionism is still as bankrupt as ever on this topic, and no serious attempt to tackle it is likely to be forthcoming.
"Oh, it'd be so much easier for a mutation to put both male and female in one body than in separate bodies - see, problem solved! And you're ignorant and stupid for thinking it ever might be a problem, BTW." That's what you'll get, only much, much wordier.
I've always thought the funnier part that even if male and female arise in the same place, species, and time; there's an overwhelmingly good chance they wouldn't understand their new roles. You know, with nothing hardwired into the circuits yet they'd still be out of luck.
I notice you've already been "corrected" for not understanding that sex would evolve in a population. Funny part is: mutations happen to individuals. And they don't spread to populations if the individual can't reproduce. But we're too thick to figure that out...
Have as much fun as you can. It can get pretty funky when you bring up an issue that they know for dead certain kills their fantasy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-28-2008 10:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Taz, posted 02-29-2008 1:16 AM CTD has not replied
 Message 30 by bluegenes, posted 02-29-2008 4:24 AM CTD has replied
 Message 31 by Vacate, posted 02-29-2008 5:58 AM CTD has not replied
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 02-29-2008 7:26 AM CTD has replied
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-29-2008 3:19 PM CTD has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 29 of 180 (458458)
02-29-2008 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by CTD
02-29-2008 12:54 AM


Re: LOL
CTD, I'd like to congratulate you for being able to show once and for all just how corrupt evolution really is.
Please help me compose a list of aninal kinds on Noah's ark in this thread. My message 25 is the list of mammals so far. Feel free to add/subtract/modify that list as you like. I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of the number of kinds on the ark one of these days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by CTD, posted 02-29-2008 12:54 AM CTD has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 30 of 180 (458464)
02-29-2008 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by CTD
02-29-2008 12:54 AM


Why do so many Christians bear false witness?
CTD (my emphasis) writes:
Greetings, Lyston. As you can see, evolutionism is still as bankrupt as ever on this topic, and no serious attempt to tackle it is likely to be forthcoming.
"Oh, it'd be so much easier for a mutation to put both male and female in one body than in separate bodies - see, problem solved! And you're ignorant and stupid for thinking it ever might be a problem, BTW." That's what you'll get, only much, much wordier.
Why do creationists need to lie and do they do it deliberately, in desperate defense of their myths, or is it self-deception?
CTD, if you want to hold forth on a complex subject like reproductive evolution, you'd be better off spending less time wanking over ancient scriptures, written by people who thought the sun went round the earth and who had no idea the continent you live on existed, and more time actually finding out about the subject.
Much wordier, indeed. Millions of words have been written about the benefits and costs of sexual reproduction. But in the mind of a superstitious fool, this becomes "no serious attempt to tackle it".
Stop lying to yourself, and start educating yourself:
HERE
And remember, when scientists don't know exactly how something happened, at any point in time, that does not mean "Allah did it".
SILLY SUPERSTITIOUS ARGUMENTS

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by CTD, posted 02-29-2008 12:54 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by CTD, posted 02-29-2008 7:16 PM bluegenes has replied
 Message 56 by Lyston, posted 03-01-2008 11:33 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024