Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 12:41 PM
41 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,176 Year: 5,213/19,786 Month: 1,335/873 Week: 231/460 Day: 47/29 Hour: 19/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Evolution is False; now what?
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 31 of 41 (138437)
08-31-2004 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by DBlevins
08-31-2004 11:26 AM


Re: We've been there before
Any time the supernatural is invoked, it is most definitly NOT science.

True, but...

In many things we reach the point where we simply do not know. One such example is the issue of what caused a singularity that must have existed for some long period to change state?

If the evidence had shown that the universe as we know it were reciprocating, expanding for awhile and then collapsing only to explode again in a never ending cycle, it would have been a blow to Creationism.

On the other hand, what appears to be the case based on the evidence so far, that there was a singularity, that the singularity existed as a singularity, and that at some point in time changed state into the expanding universe we see today, then there is the ligitamate question, "what changed"?

There are several options, we can say we don't know, or we can say God Done It. Neither is really objectionable nor will either affect any of the theories beyond that incident.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by DBlevins, posted 08-31-2004 11:26 AM DBlevins has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by nator, posted 09-01-2004 10:40 AM jar has responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 41 (138502)
08-31-2004 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Mammuthus
08-31-2004 5:08 AM


quote:
The problem with postulating this is that so much of this has already been shown to be false i.e. pre-adaptation.

Come on Mammuthus, think outside of the box.

You are right, pre-adaption is bogus as it relates to observations in the lab and field. However, the scenarios I am proposing are what I would propose as falsifying evolution. The main mechanisms of evolution are random mutation and natural selection. I am proposing guided mutations and artificial/non-natural selection, sort of like ID through gene mutation and selection. The required observation for non-random/guided mutation would be the sudden emergence of a beneficial mutation not tied to one common ancestor. Instead, a disproportionate number of organism acquire the same beneficial mutation in the same generation (something like 30% have the same nucleotide insertion at the same genome position). Most would agree that there would seem to be a specific stimuli that caused this DNA change instead of a random mistake missed by DNA repair mechanisms.

For my second scenario (artificial selection) I will use sickle cell anemia as an example. Let's pretend that a population in an area devoid of malaria also contains a disproportionate number of sickle cell heterozygous and homozygous individuals. Also, this population is not a result of a recent migration out of an area with endemic malaria. This would run counter to the idea that sickle cell is a detrimental mutation in a malarial free environment and therefore should be selected against. Now, once the sickle cell allele reaches the same concentration as seen in populations dealing with malaria we see a sudden and rapid invasion of mosquitoe born malaria. This, too me, would be an indication that detrimental alleles were being kept at high concentrations in preparation for a malarial invasion. The only way to keep such high concentrations of the sickle cell allele would be through non-natural selection.

If morphological characteristics also followed similar patterns of non-random mutations and artificial selection then I would say that evolution as a mechanism guided by chance and natural selection has been falsified.

Relating to the mechanisms of heredity, these would stay the same. You would recieve a mixture of your parents DNA and some mutations that neither of them have. However, that mixture may involve statistically improbable combinations of alleles in a non-Mendelian fashion (homozygous recessives occur more often than the dominant phenotype). Also, you may share the same mutation with a large portion of your generation.

And again, all of this flies in the face of observation, but just trying to show how heredity can be right while evolution is wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Mammuthus, posted 08-31-2004 5:08 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 4982 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 33 of 41 (138754)
09-01-2004 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by DBlevins
08-31-2004 11:21 AM


Re: Don't matter
The existence of God is fact to me. It is fiction to you.
Prove your fiction and I'll prove my fact.
What needs to be resolved?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by DBlevins, posted 08-31-2004 11:21 AM DBlevins has not yet responded

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 4982 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 34 of 41 (138755)
09-01-2004 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by DBlevins
08-31-2004 11:26 AM


Re: We've been there before
didn't say that. I said they are compatible.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by DBlevins, posted 08-31-2004 11:26 AM DBlevins has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 35 of 41 (138757)
09-01-2004 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by DBlevins
08-31-2004 11:26 AM


Re: We've been there before
and when the supernatural is invoked outside of science?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by DBlevins, posted 08-31-2004 11:26 AM DBlevins has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 36 of 41 (138762)
09-01-2004 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by jar
08-31-2004 11:37 AM


Re: We've been there before
quote:
One such example is the issue of what caused a singularity that must have existed for some long period to change state?

Didn't time begin with the singularity, so isn't talking about "before" the singularity inaccurate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 08-31-2004 11:37 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Jack, posted 09-01-2004 10:46 AM nator has responded
 Message 38 by jar, posted 09-01-2004 11:01 AM nator has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 214 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 37 of 41 (138765)
09-01-2004 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by nator
09-01-2004 10:40 AM


Re: We've been there before
Didn't time begin with the singularity, so isn't talking about "before" the singularity inaccurate?

Unfortunately there is no agreement on that issue, and current QM theory can't answer it. Both String Theory and Quantum Loop Gravity however imply that there is a 'before the bang'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by nator, posted 09-01-2004 10:40 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 09-01-2004 11:01 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 38 of 41 (138771)
09-01-2004 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by nator
09-01-2004 10:40 AM


Re: We've been there before
Actually, the question I asked doesn't deal with before the singularity, which is another issue. Rather all I was looking at is the trigger that changed the state of the singularity.

But my underlying point is that so far, every time we seem to have reached a beginning point, an ultimate simplicity, we have found that there is some additional system beneath that. And there, as we get closer and closer to root causes, to root objects, we find a beauty, logic and reason.

So if something came along and proved the TOE false, I have no doubt that we would find another theory that worked even better. Yet even that new, improved version would likely not negate the possiblility or logic of some divine intervention.

What it would not do is support the Creation Myth as contained in Genesis. Those stories have already been falsified.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by nator, posted 09-01-2004 10:40 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by lfen, posted 11-14-2004 3:09 PM jar has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 41 (138772)
09-01-2004 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dr Jack
09-01-2004 10:46 AM


Re: We've been there before
Alrighty, thanks for answering my question.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dr Jack, posted 09-01-2004 10:46 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

    
SilverTab
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 41 (159227)
11-13-2004 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Jack
08-26-2004 5:52 AM


If evolution is ever 100% disproven...

we all better start believing in magic.

This message has been edited by SilverTab, 11-13-2004 09:54 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Jack, posted 08-26-2004 5:52 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2787 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 41 of 41 (159392)
11-14-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
09-01-2004 11:01 AM


Re: We've been there before
Rather all I was looking at is the trigger that changed the state of the singularity.

My understanding of the the singularity, and I don't have the math or physics to actually grasp the theory, results in something that fits with my concept of certain eastern metaphysical viewpoints.

The singularity is in perfect balance. It is only when the balance, symmetry, perfection is altered or fails does the universe begin.

Thus it is the introduction of imperfection that causes the universe. This fits with the idea that all the things we observe in the universe are incomplete and imperfect, that is to say partial, only a part. We exist because we are imperfect. If we were perfect we wouldn't exist.

This leads me to speculate on whether the totality is perfect, or whether there was a whole that gave birth to the incomplete imperfect processes of the universe. This whole is best described as an immaculate void. Void of any characteristics because to ascribe a characteristic to it is to limit it, even to ascribe perfection to it limits it!

I do deny that the process that is me, or any person will ever be perfect as that is a contradiction in terms. Although I would accept that we are perfectly imperfect. This being a statement of acceptance. Or surrender to the will of God if you like that phrasing.

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 09-01-2004 11:01 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019