Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
24 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 21 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,330 Year: 20,366/19,786 Month: 763/2,023 Week: 271/392 Day: 2/129 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Darwinism is wrong
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 305 (204048)
05-01-2005 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by TheNewGuy03
04-30-2005 11:57 PM


Re: LOL.
TheNewGuy03

Is it wrong for me to think that way?

Is it wrong to think that being in a universe wuthout purpose is wrong? Not at all.To wish that you were dead because the universe does not find you of any consequence is pointless not wrong since that is the wish of the ego to impose demands upon what it wrongly percieves to be an unfair situation.

How would you feel if you realized that you're living just to die?

I have ralized that I am going to die but I am by no means living just to die

For me the journey has been in many ways hard though my early years were the finest one could ask for.I suppose I have been fortunate enough to have witnessed such incredible vistas and events in my wanderings as to be satiated.I have always been enamoured by the night sky the stars and planets the aurora.I wish there wre some means of diectly planting the sights sounds taste smell and touch of these things I have been privy to into others heads.

I also had the great good fortune to live in Banff Alberta for 2 years including the Calgary Olympics.I took every trail I could and even made a few of my own while living there and I got a glimpse of nature without the alteration of men and I cannot put into words the majesty and the wildness that life there has.It has no equal in my life as far as wonder and awe of the connectedness of it all.

Why are you there in the first place?

I do not think that the question is a valid one because it presupposes that there is a why.

You may not realize this, but I'm not the only one who makes that statement. Go ahead and make a sarcastic comment

It is not my intent to use sarcasm on such an issue. It is a hard life lesson the parenthesis of mortality and it requires an adjustment of one's persoanl space to realize that time is short and there is not enough in anyone's plate to squander it.It also requires you to come to the realization that everyone shares in the common bond of death yet,what is more important is that they share in the common bond of life though only briefly.

I'm saying this to say that life does have purpose, which many do not believe

I do not think life has purpose.I am of the impression that we give purpose to life. By dint of our intelligence and nature we carve out the purpose that suits our tastes and times.We wage war for gods,we aid humanitarian efforts in natural and man made catastrophe.We write music and sing build instruments to play songs that touch us.We hunt ,we fish ,we ski, dance tell lies and jokes laugh cry and raise famililes.

I was once a hardcore evolutionist myself. I'm not believing something for the sake of believing it

Evolution does not require beliefs.The evidence fits the model of evolution.One should not believe something for the sake of belief,that is mindless.There is far greater evidence of the immense pointlessness {by human perception of course} of the world than found in the theory of evolution.Physics paints far greater strictures on the possibilities of the cosmos and they are far better understood.

But that is the reasoning behind my thoughts. Hate it if you want to. But few recognize truth when there are many lies to believe

I would not hate it.I am puzzled by the seeming hopelessness that you impart to a purposeless world.

This message has been edited by sidelined, Sun, 2005-05-01 01:46 AM


And since you know you cannot see yourself,
so well as by reflection, I, your glass,
will modestly discover to yourself,
that of yourself which you yet know not of

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by TheNewGuy03, posted 04-30-2005 11:57 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-02-2005 11:46 PM sidelined has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 62 of 305 (204069)
05-01-2005 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by TheNewGuy03
05-01-2005 2:26 AM


Re: Yeah.
That's quite funny, because, in essence, you have destroyed the claims of Pasteur, Mendel, and other scientists. Even the evolutionists would disagree with you.

I'm curious to know which claims? Pasteur showed that germs cause things to rot/sour (as opposed to souring and rotting causing germs), and Mendel discovered the idea of dominant genes and heredity...an essential element of evolution. Which claims did these scientists make?

And more importantly, what experiments have "actually proved [macroevolution] wrong"? I'd like to see these experiments, they seem to have been underplayed considerably which would be a tragedy for science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-01-2005 2:26 AM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-02-2005 11:36 PM Modulous has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 482 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 63 of 305 (204071)
05-01-2005 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by TheNewGuy03
05-01-2005 12:36 AM


Re: LOL.
quote:
And I also know this: I have not come to this earth to die.

Everybody dies.

quote:
What you don't realize is that creation science actually agrees with most of evolutionary theory, sans macroevolution.

LOL!

Then it doesn't agree with evolutionary theory, because "macro" evolution is just regular evolution over long time scales.

Besides, you posit an unneded entity, so Creationism is less parsimonious as an explanation than plain old Biology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-01-2005 12:36 AM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-02-2005 11:11 PM nator has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 482 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 305 (204074)
05-01-2005 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by TheNewGuy03
05-01-2005 2:26 AM


Re: Yeah.
quote:
I never said things don't grow or change. I said that one species does not turn into another. That is the nature of genetics.

First of all, would you please be so kind as to define what you mean by "species"?

It's my understanding that these days most creation "science" groups have had to grudgingly admit that speciation occurs, simply because there is so much field and lab evidence for it. They have now just moved the goalposts to say that genus or family level evolution cannot occur.

I imagine that when humans have continually observed the evolutionary process long enough to see and record genus or family-level evolution, the goalposts will be moved again.

What is the barrier that would prevent many, many small changes in allele frequencies from accumulating over time so that eventually a new species would branch off from the parent species?

Show us.

quote:
A mutation is not another species.

No, it isn't.

quote:
It is a modification of an already-established species.

Actually, a mutation is a modification of an individual.

The mutation has to be either neutral or beneficial to spread throughout the population/species. A beneficial mutation will spread more quickly than a neutral one.

quote:
And most mutations are bad.

Actually, most mutations are neutral with regards to fitness. Mutations have to change a gene that controls the making of a protein to have an effect.

quote:
What is the likelihood of a successful mistake, dear Frog?

Well, we know mutations happen. You yourself have around 50-100 mutations, and around 3 that matter. all humans do.

And we know that the harmful ones are weeded out because those unlucky organisms don't reproduce successfuly, so the mutation doesn't spread throughout the population.

The neutral ones are just there, and of course, then we are left with the beneficial ones which do get spread throughout the population because they confer some benefit to success in reproduction.

Remember if a mutation is "beneficial" or not depends upon the environment in which the individual exists. If the environment changes, then what was "beneficial" before might be "detrimental" now.

Likewise, a "neutral" mutation might become "beneficial" if the environment changes to favor those individuals with that mutation.

Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it?

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-01-2005 09:23 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-01-2005 2:26 AM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-02-2005 11:26 PM nator has not yet responded

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 305 (204501)
05-02-2005 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by nator
05-01-2005 8:50 AM


Re: LOL.
"Everybody dies."
Thanks for the revelation.

The biggest difference between macroevolution is the fact that macroevolution presupposes common ancestry, and microevolution denotes that species change within themselves, not become other species. I keep saying the same thing; why do you guys twist my words?

Man.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by nator, posted 05-01-2005 8:50 AM nator has not yet responded

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 305 (204505)
05-02-2005 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by nator
05-01-2005 9:13 AM


Re: Yeah.
What other definition could "species" have?

It is a group of organisms having common traits and qualities. It could only have one meaning, my friend.

Quote:
"It's my understanding that these days most creation "science" groups have had to grudgingly admit that speciation occurs, simply because there is so much field and lab evidence for it. They have now just moved the goalposts to say that genus or family level evolution cannot occur."

First, you assume that I am most creation scientists, when, in fact, I actually disagree with most of their claims.

By the way, you are correct in saying that speciation does occur...within another species.

It is definitely a distant possibility that one species can become another over long periods of time, but, of course, one would have to assume that there was "a long period of time," and frankly, that has been observed by no human.

You're right, mutations usually do not occur in entire species, but in individuals. Nonetheless, the same rules apply in terms of mutations.

And what is a "neutral" mutation? Wouldn't that just be classified as a normal individual? Also, can you give me an example of a beneficial mutation?

A mutation is simply a variation. You are most definitely correct in saying that mutations occur in all humans, because all humans change. But in biological and medical terms, a mutation is not a good thing.

You've skewed the definition of "mutation," my friend.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 05-01-2005 9:13 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2005 9:54 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded
 Message 76 by Clark, posted 05-03-2005 11:06 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded
 Message 77 by NosyNed, posted 05-03-2005 11:22 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 305 (204509)
05-02-2005 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Modulous
05-01-2005 8:39 AM


Re: Yeah.
Dear Mr. Modulous,

There was once an experiment done in which a sample of rotting meat was placed within a container. One was left open, and one was sealed. The open container contained new bacteria (and fly eggs), and the sealed one didn't.

Of course you know of Pasteur's famous "bottleneck bacteria" experiment, in which the bacteria trapped within the curves of the tube were not destroyed by the heat of the broth.

Why do I say that? It [the first experiment] dispelled the evolutionary rumor that life came from non-life (also known as abiogenesis).

And Pasteur's experiment proved that heat kills, not creates, bacteria.

There was also an experiment done (I forgot when) in which a certain group of elements were mixed, and the result was the compound that is most prevalent within the earth. If I still had the book, I could tell you the guy's name and the official title of the experiment, but I don't recall. Sorry. If you really desire to know who and when, you'd have to do a search for it.

Anyway, the mixture of these elements did not do its job of "creating life," but only creating the environs in which animals have the ability to live.

And how exactly would the disproving of macroevolution be anti-science? You act as if the very focus of science is macroevolution.

This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 05-02-2005 11:49 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 05-01-2005 8:39 AM Modulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-03-2005 12:14 AM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 305 (204515)
05-02-2005 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by sidelined
05-01-2005 3:46 AM


Re: LOL.
Oh sidelined, I pity you.

In essence, you say we live just to die.

The world is rife with presuppositions, my friend. Get used to it. Just like theories and the remainder of the human thought process presupposes its facts? Like we presuppose man came from a "common apelike ancestor"?

Man can not give itself purpose. The reason for this is because we can't give ourselves anything but what has been available for us in the first place. What have you given yourself that has not already existed?

Where do you think intelligence comes from?

And it is horribly apparent that we do all these things you've listed. It's not new to me. Crap happens.

People require beliefs. A person without beliefs is an empty soul. There are things you believe in. You think, and you perform all of your actions based on your own beliefs. You are not a puppet.

You assume that the world is purposeless. You have purpose, yet you do not believe it. That is your own dealing.

THIS MESSAGE IS OFF-TOPIC, IT IS OFF-BIOLOGIC EVOLUTION FORUM. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. - Adminnemooseus

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-03-2005 12:24 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by sidelined, posted 05-01-2005 3:46 AM sidelined has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-03-2005 12:21 AM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Andya Primanda, posted 05-03-2005 8:54 AM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3775
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 69 of 305 (204528)
05-03-2005 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by TheNewGuy03
05-02-2005 11:36 PM


Abiogenesis vs. Evolution
I think that most all around here can agree that somewhere along the line, life on Earth originated from non-life. Now this may have been through God's creation, or through non-Godly naturalistic processes, or perhaps some combination of the two. Or life may have originated off-Earth via one of the above, and been imported to Earth.

Per the origin of life debate, I refer you to the topics of the Origin of Life forum.

Anyway, somehow life originated. Only after that does evolution kick in. The theory of evolution, as to be discussed in the "Biologic Evolution" forum, stands independent of how life originated.

The experiment you are probably referring to is the Miller-Urey experiment. A couple of topics relevant to it are the following, although there could well be other better topics at the "Origin of Life" forum:

Question about Miller experiment

Stanley Miller Experiment - Was It "Rigged"?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-02-2005 11:36 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3908
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 70 of 305 (204530)
05-03-2005 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by TheNewGuy03
05-02-2005 11:46 PM


Purpose of life / Meaning of life
Your message 68 is off-topic here.

Please look in the Faith and Belief forum (or elsewhere) for a better topic to discuss such.

{Added by edit - Please consider what you are about to post, and make sure it belongs in the topic you are about to post in. This goes for all. Blatant and/or repeated off-topic forays are cause for suspension. See the forum guidelines, link below.}

Adminnemooseus

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-03-2005 12:30 AM


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

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

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-02-2005 11:46 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 305 (204598)
05-03-2005 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by TheNewGuy03
05-02-2005 11:46 PM


Re: LOL.
quote:
The world is rife with presuppositions, my friend. Get used to it. Just like theories and the remainder of the human thought process presupposes its facts? Like we presuppose man came from a "common apelike ancestor"?

You should be aware that there are fossil, genetic, and many other biological evidence of the common ancestry of humans and other apes.

Go check the Human Origins thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-02-2005 11:46 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-03-2005 1:52 PM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 305 (204679)
05-03-2005 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Andya Primanda
05-03-2005 8:54 AM


Re: LOL.
They all say the same things. Lucy doesn't cut it.

What you don't realize is that people in different parts of the world have different shaped heads, and that the bones could have been of younger humans, and quite possibly of other animals. I'm not saying that the argument in favor of common ancestry of apes and humans is INVALID, but it is not consistent considering that we don't continue to find this type of stuff.

Just analyze all the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Andya Primanda, posted 05-03-2005 8:54 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by mick, posted 05-03-2005 2:49 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded
 Message 78 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 05-03-2005 11:32 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

mick
Member (Idle past 3298 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 73 of 305 (204693)
05-03-2005 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by TheNewGuy03
05-03-2005 1:52 PM


Re: LOL.
Just analyze all the evidence.

The analysis has been done, and continues as more data is gathered. If you want to argue against the common ancestry of apes and humans [sic] you will need to consider all of the evidence yourself.

Take a look at the genetic evidence, for example, and please feel free to provide evidence against common ancestry of hominidae.

Your task is to show that the genetic data are inconsistent with the idea that homo sapiens, pan troglodytes, pan paniscus, gorilla gorilla and Pongo pygmaeus form an exclusive monophyletic group.

To do this, you will first need to find a bunch of genes - say twenty or so - that have been sequenced for all of the hominid primates.

Next, you need to find the sequences for these same genes in as large a possible group of non-hominid primates. For example you would need sequences from lemurs, lorises, cebids, callitrichids, cercopithecids, etc.

Next, use a program like SeAl to align the homologous regions of each sequence, then import the alignments into Mr Bayes and generate phylogenies for each gene.

You are looking for phylogenies in which a non-hominid primate, like a lemur or macaque or baboon or something, shares a common ancestor with chimps, gorillas and orangs more recently than homo sapiens. This would be evidence for the paraphyly of hominidae, and if you could replicate it across numerous genes you would get a paper in Nature.

Good luck!

Mick

This message has been edited by mick, 05-03-2005 03:16 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-03-2005 1:52 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 305 (204788)
05-03-2005 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by TheNewGuy03
05-01-2005 2:26 AM


I said that one species does not turn into another.

But this must obviously be false. Where else would all the new species be coming from?

That is the nature of genetics.

Incorrect. The nature of genetics is that populations that are split off from their parent population eventually develop into their own new species.

One species turns into another. It must. Where else are all these new species coming from?

What is the likelihood of a successful mistake, dear Frog?

The likelyhood of a successful mutation occuring, or the likelyhood of a given mutation being successful? You'll have to be more specific. Also you'll have to define exactly the environment and mutation we're talking about; a mutation that doubles the amount of hair on a mammal's body is a beneficial one in the Arctic but a detrimental one in the Sahara.

That's quite funny, because, in essence, you have destroyed the claims of Pasteur, Mendel, and other scientists.

Not so; in fact it is their claims and research that support evolution, not contradict it.

Even the evolutionists would disagree with you.

Quite the contrary. All evolutionists agree that experimentation has confirmed the fundamental accuracy of the evolutionary model, and that new species come from old ones. (Where else are all the new species coming from?)

You are correct: random mutation does occur, and natural selection does occur. So does the survival of the fittest, and various other theories of Darwinian origin. Just not macroevolution.

If random mutation and natural selection are present then macroevolution, which is simply microevolution continuing over time, is inevitable. It cannot be stopped except by the extinction of that population.

I hope you realize that all you have said proves evolution on a small scale.

No, what I've said proves evolution on all scales. There's no difference between evolution on a small scale and on a large scale.

Anything more? I'm always listening.

That's the problem, though. You don't listen. I tell you what is true and you assert lies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-01-2005 2:26 AM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 305 (204789)
05-03-2005 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by TheNewGuy03
05-02-2005 11:26 PM


It is a group of organisms having common traits and qualities. It could only have one meaning, my friend.

But that's not the definition of species. Moreover, as a definition, it's hardly useful to a creationist. The decendant of an organism could easily lack the majority of traits and qualities its ancestors posessed; under your definition you would be forced to consider it a new species, and thus, have proved that the new species come from the old ones.

By the way, you are correct in saying that speciation does occur...within another species.

Since speciation is defined as "the arising of a new species", it would be impossible for this to happen "within a species". It's simply incoherent and impossible. If speciation is occuring then that means there are new species, and where else would they come from if not the old ones?

Also, can you give me an example of a beneficial mutation?

HIV resistance in certain, mutually related humans.

You've skewed the definition of "mutation," my friend.

Absolutely incorrect. The proper definition of "mutation" is merely a genetic sequence possessed by an organism that was not inhereted from either parent's somatic genome. The only one skewing the definition is you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-02-2005 11:26 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-04-2005 6:40 PM crashfrog has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019