|
Author
|
Topic: Take the Atheist Challenge!!!
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
Message 218 of 321 (108003)
05-13-2004 5:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 215 by riVeRraT
05-13-2004 5:03 PM
|
|
riverrat writes: I was under the impression that science thinks that we all came from one person or DNA. The Bible agrees with this. So it would have started with an individual? This is a problem I have with TOE, why only one person would have evolved instead of many.
If you are refering to the recent discovery of the single female called Eve through the study of the human mitochondrial DNA, you misunderstood what the implication of the discovery is. Although there are still debates about this, let us assume that the study was accurate and that we all descended from this "Eve." What this means is that at some point in time a female was born with a mutation that somehow made her closer to modern man. Note again that she was born with it. She did not evolve. Rather, the new genetic trait that she had gave rise to a new trait within that specific population of homonids and this trait eventually gave rise to the ancestors of modern man. In other words, you could call her a spark that started the evolution of her population. I'm sorry, but I just don't see the connection between that theory and the biblical Eve. This message has been edited by Lam, 05-13-2004 04:15 PM
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 215 by riVeRraT, posted 05-13-2004 5:03 PM | | riVeRraT has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 221 of 321 (108016)
05-13-2004 5:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 220 by NosyNed
05-13-2004 5:27 PM
|
|
Re: Not quite as you say
Ned writes: If human populations have gone through a bottleneck it is rather easy for this to happen.
Damn, I forgot about the possibility of the bottleneck happening. Thanx, Ned. I remember the first time the discovery went public. The scientists were very careful when presented the evidence that they got from the study of mitochondrial DNA. I think the scientists knew that their discovery would be misused by creationists. I think their fear was justified.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 220 by NosyNed, posted 05-13-2004 5:27 PM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: Not quite as you say
7 of 9 writes: Lam, have you read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett? It's a marvelous book. With regard to Mitochondrial Eve, Dennett explains this idea under the title "Retrospective Coronations: Mitochondrial Eve and Invisible Beginnings". It's a must-read. (The whole book is, for that matter. If you could only afford to buy one book about evolution, this is the one you should get.) First of all, I have no intention to stop calling you 7 of 9 as long as you have that avatar. That book just made it to my summer reading list. Can you tell me a little more what it says about the mitochondrial Eve? I haven't looked much into the matter.
The Laminator
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 239 of 321 (108092)
05-14-2004 1:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 236 by riVeRraT
05-14-2004 12:35 AM
|
|
riverrat writes: But be aware, as the devil also goes to church every Sunday, and is praising God right next to you.
Well, my atheism goes both ways for God and the devil.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 236 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 12:35 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 242 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 1:35 AM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 241 of 321 (108094)
05-14-2004 1:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 238 by riVeRraT
05-14-2004 1:24 AM
|
|
riverrat writes: When TOE tries to explain this, and TOE cannot be proven, then TOE cannot be a fact. Facts are actual things.
As someone else pointed out earlier, probably Sylas, fact does not mean absolute certainty.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 238 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 1:24 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 245 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 1:39 AM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 247 of 321 (108100)
05-14-2004 1:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 245 by riVeRraT
05-14-2004 1:39 AM
|
|
riverrat writes: But it all comes down to the way you look at it. We are mostly on the same page now as far as TOE not being proven. Also TOE should not be used to believe or not belive in God. agreed?
I never thought this would ever be possible. This clearly proves that pigs can fly. But anyway, yes, I agree.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 245 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 1:39 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 251 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 1:50 AM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 250 of 321 (108103)
05-14-2004 1:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 248 by riVeRraT
05-14-2004 1:43 AM
|
|
I'm studying for a final tomorrow, so I'm a little pumped up right now.
riverrat writes: Yea but, the bacteria had several mutations all at the same time. The natural selection made them do it.
Nope. Mutations happen randomly without any purpose. Natural selection makes sure that the right mutants survive.
So why would only one human evolve at a time(if thats the case)?
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.
Isn't there a slight difference there?
Not if you look at the overall result.
Doesn't it raise questions?
Sure, it raises a lot of questions, just not the ones that you are thinking of.
Isn't that what science is about?
I'm officially lost. Isn't what is what now?
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 248 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 1:43 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 253 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 1:54 AM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 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 507 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 |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
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
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 292 of 321 (108180)
05-14-2004 11:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 285 by riVeRraT
05-14-2004 9:04 AM
|
|
Re: Damage control
riverrat writes: Do we actually know how this is done, and don't say evolution. I want to know the mechanics of it. Its not magic is it?
No, it's not magic. Some or one of the bacteria has a mutation that gives it an immunity to the virus. We will call this bacterium Scott. The virus may kill all the other bacteria, but Scott survives and undergoes mitosis. The daughter cells of Scott also inherit the immunity and they undergo mitosis and their daughter cells inherit the immunity. Those daughter cells of the daughter cells of Scott undergo mitosis and their daughter cells inherit the immunity. Those daughter cells of the daughter cells of the daughter cells of Scott undergo mitosis and their daughter cells inherit the immunity... etc... After a few hundred generations, the bacteria in the dish now has immunity to the virus. Since viruses require hosts to reproduce, their number in the dish goes down to almost zero. However, it just happens that there was a random mutation in one of the viruses that allow the virus to bypass the Scott's original immunity. We will call this mutant virus Tom. Tom is able to inject its RNA into the descendants of Scott and those descendants produce offsprings of Tom. The offsprinps of Tom inherit the specific RNA info that allows them to bypass the original Scott's mutation. They then inject their newly mutated RNA into other Scott's descendants and infect more bacteria and so on and so forth. So no, it did not happen by magic. Edited: By the way, I see no reason why Scott and Tom can't get married. This message has been edited by Lama dama ding dong, 05-14-2004 10:11 AM
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 285 by riVeRraT, posted 05-14-2004 9:04 AM | | riVeRraT has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2