|
Author
|
Topic: If Evolution was proved beyond doubt...
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
Message 10 of 114 (211489)
05-26-2005 1:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Thor
05-26-2005 8:14 AM
|
|
Actually, evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt many times. In fact, I witnessed it myself. The theory of evolution, however, can never be proven. Scientific theories, by definition, can never be proven. If you want to play with this concept, you have to change the definition. Your question is the same as asking what happens if we find a prime number that can be divided by a smaller prime number? If it is a number that can be divided by a smaller prime number, then by definition it is not a prime number.
I don't know why riverrat would mention Lam here. He's just a dumb kid.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Thor, posted 05-26-2005 8:14 AM | | Thor has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 15 of 114 (211579)
05-26-2005 6:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by Namesdan
05-26-2005 2:12 PM
|
|
I should really start putting copyright signs all over my posts 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by Namesdan, posted 05-26-2005 2:12 PM | | Namesdan has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 16 by Namesdan, posted 05-26-2005 6:38 PM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
He is referring to the change in allele frequency and speciation.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by robinrohan, posted 05-27-2005 1:43 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 30 of 114 (211893)
05-27-2005 4:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 29 by randman
05-27-2005 4:05 PM
|
|
randman writes: Look at it this way, and admittedly this is over-simplified, but I can shuffle a deck of cards, and that process can continue forever and there will be a change every single time, but does that mean the ability for new combinations (variation) is unlimited?
Yes, it is unlimited.
No, I can do it forever and without some added new cards, mutations of the old ones, the cards have a finite range of possibilities even though they exist in a process of infinite change.
You have a grossly simplified (mis)conception of genetics.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 4:05 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 34 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 4:40 PM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 36 of 114 (211924)
05-27-2005 4:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by randman
05-27-2005 4:40 PM
|
|
randman writes: Gaw, the number of combinations in a deck of cards is not unlimited. There is a finite, though very large, number of combinations in a deck of cards.
The fact that you are using a deck of cards, and saying that you can't add anymore card into the deck over time, is a strawman argument against genetic mutation.
On genetics, I may have a limited amount of knowledge, but I also know that variation without any mutation is not considered sufficient to account for all of life.
I don't get it. First you argued that mutation alone couldn't account for so-called macroevolution. Now, you are saying that genetic variation can't happen without mutation. Make up your mind. What are you talking about?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 4:40 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 37 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 4:54 PM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 38 of 114 (211928)
05-27-2005 4:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by randman
05-27-2005 4:45 PM
|
|
randman writes: From what I have read in on this issue from various sources is that variation without any mutation is not considered sufficient to account for all of life.
Are you talking to yourself?
Processes are limited. The idea they are not limited by definition is absurd.
Why not?
would also argue that often we see changes within species or groups of related species that change in the fossil record with the changes found within a range, meaning they change one way and then back the other, over a long period of time, and of course, some go extinct exactly because things like extinction do stop the process, and if the process was so unlimited, extinctions would be less likely.
Huh? You even know what extinction means?
So the real crux of the matter goes to whether observable mutations are sufficient to explain the development of all life in adding the "jumps" necessary to break out of the cycle of a range of change due to reproductive variation.
I'm very interested to hear more about this "range of change" you are talking about. Question. You really think that observable mutations are all there is about life we find in the fossil record?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 4:45 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 40 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 5:01 PM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 39 of 114 (211929)
05-27-2005 4:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by randman
05-27-2005 4:54 PM
|
|
rand writes: and my point is that micro-evolution can occur without mutations, .. How?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 4:54 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 42 of 114 (211936)
05-27-2005 5:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by randman
05-27-2005 5:01 PM
|
|
Again, my question is are you talking to yourself? I can't seem to find anyone (except for you) that initially said that evolution of any kind does not require mutation. So, I can only conclude that you are debating with yourself.
By the way, is the process of a human life unlimited?
Oh my! You've stumbled onto the answer to life itself. It means that the computer lifespan is about 80-100 years. The universe must have a life span of 80-100 years. Oh my goodness! The sun is going to end soon, since it can only live 80 to 100 years.
What stops variation alone without mutation from developing into unlimited life forms is the fact that there is a limited and finite combination that can stem from variation absent any mutations.
Ok, seriously. I want to know what your current knowledge of genetic variation is like. Please explain how evolution of any kind can occur without mutation.
Mutations are considered both real and necessary.
*note to self... must fight temptation to ask question again*
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 5:01 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 45 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 5:22 PM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 46 of 114 (211946)
05-27-2005 5:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by randman
05-27-2005 5:22 PM
|
|
randman writes: Microevolution occurs without mutation all the time. All change is microevolution, by definition.
Again, I'm only interested in this statement. What do you define as microevolution and what are some examples of microevolution without mutation? Added by edit. The reason I haven't taken you seriously is because I think your standpoint is a little silly. I'll get to that later. But first thing first. Question above. This message has been edited by GAW-Snow, 05-27-2005 05:27 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 5:22 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 48 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 5:33 PM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 49 of 114 (211949)
05-27-2005 5:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
05-27-2005 5:33 PM
|
|
I wasn't interested in what the dictionary said... anyone could have gotten that. I just wanted to know what YOU think evolution is. Now that we got that cleared up, you still haven't answered my question. How is evolution possible without mutation and what are some examples?
Sorry Gaw, but you don't measure up. You want to debate definitions in a clear attempt to avoid the issue.
Do you practice being vague? And since when did I want to debate about definition? Added by edit: On a second thought, see you again next week. I'll be married to the road the next few days. This message has been edited by GAW-Snow, 05-27-2005 05:59 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 5:33 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2