Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Slanted" Eyes in Orientals
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 97 (115957)
06-17-2004 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by prophageus
02-29-2004 3:43 AM


Difference in races is nothing but difference in genetic characteristics and skin pigment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by prophageus, posted 02-29-2004 3:43 AM prophageus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-17-2004 8:12 PM almeyda has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 97 (116316)
06-18-2004 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by macaroniandcheese
06-17-2004 8:12 PM


quote:
yes, but we want to know WHY those exist. it's not racist to study the differences.
we know so little about it PRECISELY because of attitudes like this. because people are too scared of looking intolerant to study some of the most interesting stuff out there.
Well i base my belief on Gods account of origins and luckily for us the Tower of Babel provides a perfect account of dispersion and change in environment and genetics which would lead to changes in characteristics which then lead to different types of people.
This message has been edited by almeyda, 06-18-2004 03:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-17-2004 8:12 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-18-2004 8:04 AM almeyda has replied
 Message 49 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-18-2004 1:06 PM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 97 (116455)
06-18-2004 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by macaroniandcheese
06-18-2004 8:04 AM


No it also deals with dispersion. Into different environments around the world which lead to changes in skin pigment and characteristics from changes in genetics. The confusion forced the people to scatter over the earth. All the people groups black Africans, Indo-Europeans, Mongolians, and others have come into existence since Babel. Once separate languages were imposed not only would people tend not to marry someone they couldnt understand, but entire groups which spoke the same language would have difficulty relating to and trusting those which did not, they would move away or be forced away from each other, into different environments. As these groups migrated away from Babel they encountered new and different climate zones. The dispersion at Babel broke up a large interbreeding group into small, inbreeding groups.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-18-2004 8:04 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-18-2004 1:25 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 52 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-18-2004 3:18 PM almeyda has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 97 (116594)
06-18-2004 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by macaroniandcheese
06-18-2004 3:18 PM


You guys are confused. Things like natural selection are not evolutionary ideas but scientific ideas. Creationists have no problem with natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-18-2004 3:18 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Coragyps, posted 06-18-2004 11:02 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 06-18-2004 11:57 PM almeyda has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 97 (116624)
06-19-2004 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by RAZD
06-18-2004 11:57 PM


Of course evolution is science. But just because i believe in genetics someone thought i must believe in evolution. A scientist does not have to believe in evolution to be a scientist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 06-18-2004 11:57 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-20-2004 12:40 AM almeyda has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 97 (116828)
06-20-2004 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by pink sasquatch
06-20-2004 12:40 AM


Re: evolution proved with biblical story
quote:
Colonization of new ecological niches leads to specialization and changes in phenotypic "characteristics from changes in genetics," presumably due to selection by the "different environments."
There has been no simple-to-complex evolution of any genes, for the genes were present already. The dominant features of the various people groups result from different combinations of previously existing created genes, plus some minor degenerative changes, resulting from mutation (accidental changes which can be inherited). The originally created genetic information has been either reshuffled or has degenerated, but has not been added. That is not evolution.
quote:
Almeyda, whether or not you choose to admit it, you're laying down the theory of evolution through biblical teachings
No im definately not. For evolution to have occured all types of life would have to have been descended by natural on going proccesses from a single life form. But for this to have worked there must be a process that can generate information in living things. This is where the theory of Natural selection comes into play. But natural selection cannot explain new species, natural selection has never achieved progresive additional amounts of genetic information, only a decrease
quote:
You've basically defined evolution here, right down to the "changes in genetics."
After your input I may use the Babel story as biblical proof of evolution in future discussions
None of what i said has been proof of evolution, but evidence for creation as animals stay stagnet and in their own kinds (equine,canine etc). Not what evolutionists claim that over millions of yrs one specie changes into another specie. Good luck your Babel is evidence for evolution theory though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-20-2004 12:40 AM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-20-2004 4:33 AM almeyda has replied
 Message 64 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-20-2004 9:22 PM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 97 (116835)
06-20-2004 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by pink sasquatch
06-20-2004 4:33 AM


Re: evolution proved with biblical story
quote:
You've given no evidence for creation yet, only refutation of evolution while apparently unwittingly supporting it. You claim that "animals stay stagnant" as evidence for creation, but above describe the evolution of differences in humans.
The "evolution" of humans is not evolution at all. The changes in races are not due to evolution but natural selection dealing with genes already present.
quote:
Perhaps most importantly, if you want to use the term "kind," you absolutely must give a definition of it for this debate to be valid. Without a valid definition we cannot begin to discuss where one kind ends and another begins...
Kinds are a group of organisms that can interbreed among themselves, but not with another group. Crossing a male ass and a horse produces a mule. Hybrids between zebras and horses (zorse) and zebras and donkeys (zeedonk, zonkey, zebrass) also occur. But they are from a common equine kind. This is not due to evolution but created kinds to reproduce after their own therefore with natural selection, different types of these kinds can arise. The reason creationists can use this as evidence for creation and against evolution is because it is consistent with what God says in Genesis 1:21,24,25.
God created all kinds, or basic types of creatures and plants with the ability to produce variety in their offspring. These varieties come from recombinations of the existing genetic information created in the beginning (natural selection). Properly understanding adaptation by natural selection which gets rid of information does not involve the addition of new complex DNA information. Thus evolutionists should not teach that it demonstrates ‘evolution happening’, as if it showed the process by which fish could eventually turn into people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-20-2004 4:33 AM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-20-2004 5:44 AM almeyda has replied
 Message 63 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-20-2004 5:57 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 06-20-2004 9:39 PM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 97 (117043)
06-21-2004 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by pink sasquatch
06-20-2004 5:44 AM


Re: evolution proved with biblical story
quote:
Here you admit mutation-based change in reproductively isolated groups resulting in changes in features. This is evolution.
Mutations are not evolution!. Evolution is evolving into higher more complex life forms not devolving with mutations and already existing genes. There has been a loss of genetic information, the opposite of what molecules-to-man evolution needs. As evolution has no way to get either any initial information, or the information necessary for each increase in complexity, creationist quite often rule out evolution as the way living things came to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-20-2004 5:44 AM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2004 6:48 AM almeyda has replied
 Message 73 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-22-2004 1:29 PM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 97 (117048)
06-21-2004 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
06-21-2004 6:48 AM


quote:
What are you talking about? Random mutation and natural selection provide that capability. Random mutation is the source of random strings and natural selection filters out all but the ones with additional "information", whatever that is.
You're saying that "evolution has no process to generate new information", but evolution - or the mechanisms of evolution, anyway - are that process.
What your speaking of is something like microevolution, little by little and over millions of yrs, things can change to different species and can form higher more complex life forms. Which can then lead to macro, molecules to man etc. But were here in the present. How do we go from that one celled organism into all living things. If evolution means anything at all, it means that it has produced massive amounts of gain in information to form what we see today. But if you have only a one-celled thing in a pond, it doesnt have the information in the DNA. This cell does not have information to produce brains, blood, eyes, ears etc. So for evolution to work it needs to add new information into the genes. But in all observations of natural selection, adaptation are all downhill processes. And you cant add up lots and lots of losses and expect a gain. Im sure evolutionists dont mind mutations and loss of information but likewise they must have uphill changes happening constantly!. And of course not all mutations are bad and can lead to adaptation to certain environments but this is a loss and is not 'evidence of evolution'.
In an evolutionary framework for example there was once living things but no lungs. They hadnt evolved yet, So there was no information for lungs, they had to come from somewhere. Then lungs but no feathers etc, progressive information. It would help evolutionists or better yet be necessary to point to examples of this. I think evolutionists would agree that natural selection doesnt do this. The only chance evolutionists have is with mutations, but this is just copying mistakes. Copies of our information, reshuffling etc. It cannot account for the complexity we see today, in organic design, in DNA. For example lets say i lent you a video tape and you made a copy and then a another copy. This leads to defects and the defects get copied along. This will not produce a brand new video tape (Very stupid example but try to imagine). So this is the problem of mutations. This does not mean a mutation cannot be beneficial, there are a few because a defect can be a benefit. There is no mechanism for matter to generate new information.
Dr Dawkins a man whos books has sold millions and who is never lost for words was stoped like a deer in the headlights in the video 'From Frog to a Prince' when asked if he could give one example of a mutation or any evolutionary procces which has added information to the genome. He could not provide. And this is the bankruptcy of the evolutionary theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2004 6:48 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2004 8:05 AM almeyda has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 97 (117411)
06-22-2004 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
06-21-2004 8:05 AM


Do you have a link where this increased information in living things due to natural selection can be found.
quote:
Doesn't it ever anger you, Almeyda, how creationists lie to you? I know it angered me when I found out. I used to be a creationist too, you know.
What have they lied about?.
quote:
Dr Dawkins should have been in a position to show any scientific (observable and testable) evidence that mutations and natural selection can add information. However, the video shows that Dawkins was unable to provide any experimental evidence, and gave an ‘answer’ completely unrelated to the question.
Whats the creationists conspiracy against Dawkins?.
quote:
RD: ‘ I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome. It is a question that nobody except a creationist would ask ’
GB: That question actually came at the end of the interview. At the beginning, Philip Hohnen asked several general questions on the origin of new information. These questions are recorded on tape and may be viewed, either on tape or transcripted, by anyone interested in the exact nature of the questions. Dawkins objected to the questions and stopped the recording. He claimed that questions on the origin of new information were invalid, and that nobody ever asked him such questions. I responded that the question of information was perfectly valid, and very important to the evolution-creation debate.
Dawkins also says that these questions are just questions creationists ask. But it is relevant to the battle for truth. For evolution to be a valid answer to origins they must show how an evolutionary process can give an increase in information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2004 8:05 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 06-22-2004 3:23 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 72 by contracycle, posted 06-22-2004 6:46 AM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 97 (118098)
06-24-2004 12:08 AM


quote:
The researchers witnessed a speciation event in a closed population they were studying, a single gene mutation changed the shell pattern of a snail, and the constraints of the new shell shape prevent the snails with the two types of shells from aligning their genitals to mate. But, the old-shelled snails could mate with the old-shelled, and the new-shelled could mate with other new-shelled snails.
Thus snails with the shell-changing mutation are incapable of "interbreeding" with the ones without the mutation - even if they are sitting next to each other in the same pond.
I think the snail example is powerful: Humans witnessed it, it is based on a single gene mutation, that mutation prevents mating between those with and without the mutation (reproductive isolation), and the shell pattern is visibly different (morphology difference).
This is not evolution. This is just a mutation. Like a human being born without genetalia. Its still a human. Its just got a mutation. Mutations are not evolution. You must provide evidence of an increase in information. If that snail grew legs. That would be evolution. It evolved into a more complex thing. But it cannot because the information for legs is not in a snails genes.

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2004 12:20 AM almeyda has replied
 Message 81 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-24-2004 11:51 AM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 97 (118119)
06-24-2004 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD
06-24-2004 12:20 AM


Re: that old bogus "added information" argument again ...
The problem with this is that evolution has these few changes here and there. Theres change happening, but its not evolution, its natural selection. Even if you can point to a few insects here and there that gave rise to a beneficial fly evolution needs more than this. Evolutionists speak about natural selection being the basic mechanism but in fact it is the opposite of what evolution needs. Things like fruitflys with larger wings is not evolution. If your son is taller than you by a change in combination of genes. Is that evolution? no. Many textbooks about evolution claime that evolution is a change in the frequency of the genes. If evolution were true it certainly would produce a change in the ratio of the types of genes which were present because it would be adding new genetic information which previously did not exist. You can change the gene frequency or the ratio of the genes that are already present as much as you like, but unless you add new genes you wont get evolution. Evolution, if it were to occur would require the creation of completely new genetic information. Changes in living things such as the colour distribution of the peppered moths show an interesting alteration in colour-gene frequency but they offer nothing at all to support the notion of evolution that is formation of new genetic information. Natural selection only works in complete living things. It cannot account for the adding of eyes, blood and brains etc in premeval life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2004 12:20 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2004 9:15 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 82 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-24-2004 11:59 AM almeyda 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