Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How long does it take to evolve?
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 25 of 221 (769800)
09-25-2015 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Lamden
09-24-2015 11:11 AM


Re: Thanks to all of you for reading my question
Lamden, you presented us with a false dilemma, not a very honest technique. You wrote:
Lamden writes:
And in order for the creationists to win, they don't have to prove that creation happened. They just have to prove that e/v could NOT happen.
That's very dishonest. If you really are interested in honest debate; you should drop obvious untruths such as those.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Lamden, posted 09-24-2015 11:11 AM Lamden has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Lamden, posted 09-25-2015 10:50 AM Pressie has replied
 Message 37 by Lamden, posted 09-25-2015 2:06 PM Pressie has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 26 of 221 (769803)
09-25-2015 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lamden
09-23-2015 10:34 PM


Lamden writes:
I know it is not easy to count, but I am looking for an educated guess. If DNA alone is 6 ft of microscopic code, that must been quite a bit of evolving right there!
If stretched out, the DNA of the plant Paris japonica would stretch more than 328 feet — taller than Big Ben — while the genome from a human cell would stretch just 6.5 feet.
Now, that's a lot of evolution going on there. But guess what, the evolution of Paris japonica from those oldest fossils discovered (prokaryotes from around 3.8 billion years ago), also took around 3.8 billion years. Can you calculate the mutation rate?
Can you see that your questions don't make any sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lamden, posted 09-23-2015 10:34 PM Lamden has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 27 of 221 (769804)
09-25-2015 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Lamden
09-24-2015 3:17 PM


Re: Thanks to all of you for reading my question
Lamden writes:
If I am wrong, if you have the patience to show me where, I, ME, MYSELF, ONLY ME, would like to understand where I went wrong.
You've been shown to be wrong a few times. Providing a false dichotomy is one of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Lamden, posted 09-24-2015 3:17 PM Lamden has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 28 of 221 (769805)
09-25-2015 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lamden
09-23-2015 10:34 PM


Lamden wrote:
Lamden writes:
would like to know, approximately how many mutations would theoretically be needed to transform the most basic form of life into a human being?
64 250 521 billion trillion point mutations. But doing the sums, it works out that there was plenty of time as mutations such as genetic capture were not included in the point mutation calculations. After considering all those other 'kinds' of mutations we know of at the moment; it all works perfectly with 3.758 billion years to spare!
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lamden, posted 09-23-2015 10:34 PM Lamden has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 30 of 221 (769809)
09-25-2015 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Omnivorous
09-25-2015 8:16 AM


Re: the other side of the question
Yip. From my point of view Lamden is a dishonest creationist because he/she told untruths about the basics.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Omnivorous, posted 09-25-2015 8:16 AM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 31 of 221 (769810)
09-25-2015 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Omnivorous
09-25-2015 8:16 AM


Re: the other side of the question
Yip. From my point of view Lamden is a dishonest creationist. And he tells untruths. The false dichotomy gave him/her away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Omnivorous, posted 09-25-2015 8:16 AM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 47 of 221 (770019)
09-28-2015 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Lamden
09-25-2015 10:50 AM


Re: Thanks to all of you for reading my question
Oh, I did understand Lamden. You presented a false dilemma. I understand that very, very well. Are you able to understand it, darling? Honey?
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Lamden, posted 09-25-2015 10:50 AM Lamden has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 72 of 221 (770142)
09-30-2015 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by AZPaul3
09-25-2015 7:13 PM


Re: Thanks to all of you for reading my question
I'm going to be a Prophet now and predict that, if Lamden returns, 'Haldane's dilemma' may or may not feature somewhere...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by AZPaul3, posted 09-25-2015 7:13 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 75 of 221 (770151)
09-30-2015 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Theodoric
09-30-2015 8:35 AM


Re: Thanks to all of you for reading my question
Big_Al is trying to divert attention away from reality. Big-Al can't face reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Theodoric, posted 09-30-2015 8:35 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 96 of 221 (770517)
10-07-2015 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by AZPaul3
10-07-2015 4:11 AM


Re: Let's Get This Discussion Started!
AZPaul writes:
The whole individual. Any new mutation may well be passed on to the babies be it good, bad or indifferent. The key in natural selection is the combined phenome, the whole of the individual, with respect to their ability to make healthy babies (fecundity).
That's how I understand it, too. There's no ordered steps. It doesn't happen in the order of mutation one and then mutation two and then mutation three and then mutation four and then mutation five and then mutation six and then and then and then.... The order of mutations don't matter. In the end, the combined effects of all the mutations (no order of mutations happening) do things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by AZPaul3, posted 10-07-2015 4:11 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 203 of 221 (770881)
10-15-2015 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by MrHambre
10-15-2015 5:36 AM


Re: Eunuchs in the Whorehouse
I hear you viewpoint, MrHambre, but sorry, to me the viewpoints provided were spouted by people who spend too much time writing about science and not enough time actually doing it.
Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by MrHambre, posted 10-15-2015 5:36 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 210 of 221 (770937)
10-16-2015 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by MrHambre
10-16-2015 6:16 AM


Re: The Limits of Skepticism
MrHambre writes:
And my question still stands: is there any conceivable critique of modern science that we would find acceptable?
In my field, economic geology and the coal deposits in the Witbank and Ellisras Coalfields, yes, you're most welcome to try.
If you find a better way of accurately predicting what will be found underground then you're most welcome to go for it.
Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by MrHambre, posted 10-16-2015 6:16 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 220 of 221 (771983)
11-02-2015 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Tanypteryx
10-16-2015 6:07 PM


Re: The Limits of Skepticism
Tanypteryx writes:
Thinking back over the MrHambre posts that I have read there is a strong undercurrent of disapproval or dislike of science.
I also got the same undercurrent of disapproval about science from that person. Actually, in the posts from that person I picked up a very great distaste for anything scientific.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-16-2015 6:07 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but 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