Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Take the Atheist Challenge!!!
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 256 of 321 (108109)
05-14-2004 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Asgara
05-14-2004 1:51 AM


Ok, now I am confused again, crap.
Natural selection is fact?
The darwin experiment with the black and white moths.
Just because the one color moth survives better, does that mean it evolved? Is it not still possible that it could make white moths again?
Same thing for the bacteria. Once its enemy goes away, can't it revert back to its original state?
Is it possible that, this is all it will ever be cabable of?
Or how bout this question, isn't natural selection limited to natural enemies?
Doesn't that limit the whole thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Asgara, posted 05-14-2004 1:51 AM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Asgara, posted 05-14-2004 2:07 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 311 by Rrhain, posted 05-15-2004 2:34 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 257 of 321 (108110)
05-14-2004 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Sylas
05-14-2004 1:55 AM


Damn Sylas, you have a way with words that just stirs my corrupted little heart.
{going off to check on legal ramifications of stalking ..er.. worshiping from afar..over international borders}

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Sylas, posted 05-14-2004 1:55 AM Sylas has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 258 of 321 (108112)
05-14-2004 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by riVeRraT
05-14-2004 2:01 AM


River, I am happy that you are coming up with all these questions, but I'm not really the best one to get answers from. My answers tend to be very simplistic.
You would do better to get into a discussion with my one true love Sylas, or one of the bio types around here.
People like you that come in with genuine questions are very well recieved around here. (just don't let us scare you off, we descend like vultures on any chance at a quality debate {you've noticed I'm not in bed yet LOL} )

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 2:01 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 2:13 AM Asgara has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 259 of 321 (108113)
05-14-2004 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Sylas
05-14-2004 1:55 AM


The way I was raised makes it hard for me to see something as being fact, and unproven theory at the same time. It is contradictary to me.
It is miss-leading to me.
I understand everything else your saying, just don't use those evidences not to believe in God. Or at least consider it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Sylas, posted 05-14-2004 1:55 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by NosyNed, posted 05-14-2004 2:31 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 269 by Sylas, posted 05-14-2004 4:13 AM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 260 of 321 (108115)
05-14-2004 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Sylas
05-14-2004 1:58 AM


Its just that I find a difference in whole populations changing at the same time, as compared to possibly only on person out of a group of people, or animals changing.
i.e.
If there was a group of primates living in a cave, say 50 or so. They all got subjected to the same natural selective behavoir, and only one mutates. Doesn't this raise questions, as to why only one does.
And what if the numbers wher greater than that. The ratios of mutations of a given species would then seem to be different, why?
I should go to college.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Sylas, posted 05-14-2004 1:58 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Asgara, posted 05-14-2004 2:15 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 264 by coffee_addict, posted 05-14-2004 2:28 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 272 by Sylas, posted 05-14-2004 4:33 AM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 261 of 321 (108116)
05-14-2004 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Asgara
05-14-2004 2:07 AM


You crack me up. lol
Now I am going to bed.
Nice meeting you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Asgara, posted 05-14-2004 2:07 AM Asgara has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 262 of 321 (108118)
05-14-2004 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by riVeRraT
05-14-2004 2:12 AM


River, it isn't natural selection causing the mutations. Mutations just happen, they happen all the time. (You yourself probably have at least 4 or 5 changes from the genetic makeup of your parents.)
Natural selection works on mutations that are all ready there. If only one member of a group had a mutation that is beneficial in their particular circumstances, then that individual is the one more likely to survive to pass on his genes, mutation and all.

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 2:12 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 8:33 AM Asgara has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 263 of 321 (108119)
05-14-2004 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by riVeRraT
05-14-2004 1:54 AM


riverrat writes:
Lam writes:
People don't evolve individually. The smallest unit that can evolve is a population. However, individuals can have mutations, which contribute to the evolution of the population.
Doesn't this contradict the theoretical Eve?
How so? I think it would be easier for me and others to explain this if you could tell us which part you are confused about.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 1:54 AM riVeRraT has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 264 of 321 (108121)
05-14-2004 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by riVeRraT
05-14-2004 2:12 AM


riverrat writes:
Its just that I find a difference in whole populations changing at the same time, as compared to possibly only on person out of a group of people, or animals changing.
Let me try to be clear on this. Say that you have 50 monkeys living in a forest. It just happens that one of these monkeys has a mutation in it that allows him to sense when a female monkey is ovulating. We will call this monkey Scott. Therefore, Scott could get to the females in the population a lot quicker than the other males, thus impregnate more females than the other males. The offsprings of Scott also inherit this trait, so they too can impregnate females a lot better than the other males in the group. After about 10 generations, you can imagine that the descendants of Scott has completely dominated this population because of this one advantage.
Oh, by the way, Scott had blue fur instead of grey like the rest of the group. So, over about 10 generations, the population has evolved from grey haired into blue haired monkeys.
The scenerio describes an individual having a mutation that eventually changed the whole population.
If there was a group of primates living in a cave, say 50 or so. They all got subjected to the same natural selective behavoir, and only one mutates. Doesn't this raise questions, as to why only one does.
Nope, it doesn't raise that kind of question. Mutation happens completely randomly and without any purpose whatsoever. This is why the more genetic variation within a population, the more chances the species will survive.
And what if the numbers wher greater than that. The ratios of mutations of a given species would then seem to be different, why?
What you've just described is very close to the bottle neck effect. A natural disaster will decimate the a population. When the population regain its number like the original population, the allele frequency has changed dramatically. In other words, the new population looks nothing like the old one.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 2:12 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 8:43 AM coffee_addict has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 265 of 321 (108123)
05-14-2004 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by riVeRraT
05-14-2004 2:08 AM


fact and theory
The way I was raised makes it hard for me to see something as being fact, and unproven theory at the same time. It is contradictary to me.
It is miss-leading to me.
Let's try again then.
It is a fact that things fall down if let go with no support. Right?
So how does this happen? Newton explained it through the attraction that masses have. This is the "how" and is a theory of gravity. His theory gave equations for calculating how fast things would fall.
Now we have what we might carelessly call "gravity" meaning two things. One is the fact that things fall and the other is a theory on how.
It turns out that if you are very nit picky or dealing with some situations that Newton's theory was "wrong" (or not perfect or whatever word you want to use). Did things stop falling down? No!
Now we have Einstein's theory of gravity. It predicts different results under some circumstances. The difference in predictions was used to see who was right. However, there is a good chance that Einstein's theory is also wrong. There are some problems to be sorted out. When they are we might have a third theory of gravity.
How about a simpler analogy:
Bob has arrived at your doorstep to visit. That is a fact. You don't see his car in the drive way but it could be up the street. The buses don't run very close. He could have hitched a ride. Bob is lazy. Bob doesn't like to spend money. If he doesn't tell you how he got there you might form your own "theory" (more like an hypothosis). He drove but parked up the street to avoid the mud near your house which would dirty his car.
It is a fact that he got there, he was transported, and you have a theory of transportation.
We use the word "evolution" to mean both the fact that evolution has happened and the Theory of Evolution (ToE). Sometimes it isn't clear when just the one word is used.
And it is simply fact that it has happened. Once upon a time (it doesn't matter exactly the amount of time ago) there were no mammals, no birds, no reptiles. At a later time there were reptiles but no birds and mammals. Now they are all here. Either there were a whole bunch of individual creation weeks or the later life was born of the earlier. This is what scientists of a couple of hundred years ago went through. They were predominantly believers in the story in Genesis. When they found more and more evidence for the changes in life they had to keep adding more and more and more creation weeks until it began to get silly.
But if not those creation weeks then how did the life change? That was the question that Darwin answered. Of course with what we've learned since the orginal "many weeks" theory would have to have 10,000 of creation weeks and would clearly be absurd as a theory.
Also you are having trouble with the word "proven" (or "unproven"). In mathematics the word proof is used very carefully. It means absolutely and completely for sure true. The word proof is used somewhat similarly in science. Since we can't have mathematical proofs for anything we avoid the word proof.
That doesn't mean that there is much doubt about some "unproven" theories. There is probably more doubt about general relavity (Einstein's theory of gravity) than there is about the ToE. A theory isn't proven it just gets to be more and more trusted. Some of our scientific theories are very trusted indeed. The ToE is one of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 2:08 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 8:59 AM NosyNed has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 266 of 321 (108133)
05-14-2004 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by crashfrog
05-14-2004 12:15 AM


Damage control
Then the virus mutated to counteract the bacteria's resistance.
Crash, it is unfortunate that you formulated it this way. It's exactly the kind of thing that makes it so easy for creationists to misinterpret the mechanisms of random mutation and non-random selection.
The way you put it, it could be interpreted as saying that the virus has the intention to counteract the bacteria's resistance and that it's way of accomplishing it, is mutation. So, it actively mutates.
You and I know, of course, that this is not how it goes. But a creationist who has little knowledge of evolution might construe it that way. And what's worse: they got it from an evolutionist, so that "proves" that evolutionists contradict themselves, because others tell the story differently.
I don't mean to patronize you, but let's be very careful in how we formulate our explanations. Telling it the right way from the start saves a lot of damage control later.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 05-14-2004 03:17 AM

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2004 12:15 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by coffee_addict, posted 05-14-2004 3:43 AM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 284 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 9:02 AM Parasomnium has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 267 of 321 (108134)
05-14-2004 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Parasomnium
05-14-2004 3:36 AM


Re: Damage control
Seven of Nine writes:
The way you put it, it could be interpreted as saying that the virus has the intention to counteract the bacteria's resistance and that it's way of accomplishing it, is mutation. So, it actively mutates.
I really doubt some of these creationists are technical enough to catch that.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Parasomnium, posted 05-14-2004 3:36 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Parasomnium, posted 05-14-2004 4:09 AM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 285 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 9:04 AM coffee_addict has replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 268 of 321 (108135)
05-14-2004 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by coffee_addict
05-14-2004 3:43 AM


Re: Damage control
I really doubt some of these creationists are technical enough to catch that.
They don't need to be technical enough, it's rather the very fact that they aren't that makes them misinterpret things. It's a natural selection kind of thing, I suppose you could say.
On second thought, it's a meme thing really. If we can do the right amount of memetic engineering, we might be able to steer creationists' understanding of evolution. (Don't take this too seriously.)

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by coffee_addict, posted 05-14-2004 3:43 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 9:13 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 269 of 321 (108136)
05-14-2004 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by riVeRraT
05-14-2004 2:08 AM


riVeRraT writes:
The way I was raised makes it hard for me to see something as being fact, and unproven theory at the same time. It is contradictary to me.
That would be a bit odd to me as well. I consider evolution to be thoroughly proven theory; not unproven theory.
Of course, in empirical science you never get final proof, and there is always scope for new developments.
However, the position of biological evolution is such that new developments are likely to be refinements; not total replacements. We've seen this already, in (for example) the celebrated New Synthesis of evolution back in the forties or thereabouts, which integrated Darwinian theory with genetics. There will new refinements in the future as well, I am sure.
The following five points, I believe, are about as factual as anything can ever get in science. These points are the data which will still need to be explained in any future theoretical structures explaining biology:
  1. Life has been around on Earth for a long, long time.
  2. Highly diverse forms of life in the present are directly related to each other through common ancestors in the past.
  3. Living creatures change from generation to generation.
  4. Change between generations accumulates over many generations.
  5. The fine adaptation of living creatures to their environment is substantially a consequence of the effects of natural selection of better adapted forms.
There are things I have deliberately omitted from that list. For example, I have left open the possibility of other matters contributing to adaptation, and I have omitted any reference to the processes of speciation. I have not defined lineages, and I have not said anything about the origins of life, or the matter of cross lineage linkages. There are still many matters which are wide open, and others which are strongly likely but still a long way from being solid scientific fact.
I understand everything else your saying, just don't use those evidences not to believe in God.
Fear not... I don't.
Many evolutionists do consider that evolutionary biology is strong evidence against God, but I am not one of them. Many evolutionists are themselves strong believers in God, and I am not one of them either. I am an unbeliever; but my reasons for that have nothing to do with evolution.
I was rather intrigued by a comment made by Glenn Morton, who is a strongly evangelical Christian, and ex-creationist, on Genesis 1:24.
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so.
Glenn feels that is a comment about evolution, because it explicitly indicates that life comes forth from the earth; rather than being formed as constructed artefacts.
I don't agree with him that this actually is intended to mean evolution, but I do think that the bible speaks of the creation of an ordered and fecund cosmos, and that it is a legitimate aspect of the verse that life comes forth from the earth at God's command, rather than being constructed as if by an anthropomorphic divine engineer.
I personally find very odd the theology of creationists who insist that the processes of the natural created world are something to contrast with the creative acts of their God; as if they could look at the world and single out some things as created, and others as not created but naturally formed. I don't actually think that is a good reflection of the theology of creation in Genesis. It is critical to Genesis that God is responsible for *everything*. That includes the beautiful bay of Santorini in the Greek Islands, for all that it was formed by a volcanic explosion. It includes the formation of you and I as unique individuals; for all that we grew by natural processes in our mothers' wombs.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 2:08 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 270 of 321 (108137)
05-14-2004 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Zachariah
05-12-2004 5:31 PM


Re: Believing in God
Zachariah responds to me:
quote:
Are you telling me that I can't make a reference to cells not able to "pop" into being as an example of a creator without YOU telling ME I'm talking about evolution.
So you're saying that in the middle of a discussion about evolution, you decided to completely abandon the topic of evolution to bring up abiogenesis, all the while not mentioning the fact that you were abandoning evolution and that your comments shouldn't be taken to be in reference to evolution?
Are you seriously telling me that you understand that evolution and abiogenesis have no connection to each other and that evolution is consistent with every method of origin of life you could care to name?
quote:
And if you don't like the idea of me asking others to take this challenge without me taking yours (giving up christianity for a month) then start your own topic.
Why? Why shouldn't I point out the complete vacuousness of your "challenge" and warn people that there is no point to it? That you will accuse those who come out the other side still not believing of being closed-minded, lazy thinkers who didn't take it seriously?
quote:
But don't tell me to take your challenge so you'll take mine. It doesn't work that way here.
It most certainly does.
If you don't have the respect to put your money where your mouth is, why should anybody pay any attention to you?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Zachariah, posted 05-12-2004 5:31 PM Zachariah 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