Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not science
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 305 (395052)
04-14-2007 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by City_on_a_Hill
04-14-2007 5:40 PM


Re: Copy Errors
A trait is a characteristic of a population. Mutations cannot produce new traits if the genetic information needed for those traits did not already exist.
Er ... by definition, a mutation can ONLY produce a new trait if the genetic information needed for those traits did not already exist.
Evolution cannot be observed, tested or repeated. Claims that we can observe evidence for the theory of evolution are completely unfounded.
Someone's been lying to you again.
Let me point out once more that before you recite stuff like this, you have an obligation to find out if it's true.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-14-2007 5:40 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 77 of 305 (395053)
04-14-2007 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by City_on_a_Hill
04-14-2007 6:20 PM


Re: You're kidding right?
They're only transitional if you've already assumed the theory of evolution to be correct.
They are, however, intermediate whatever you assume.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-14-2007 6:20 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 78 of 305 (395054)
04-14-2007 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by City_on_a_Hill
04-14-2007 6:17 PM


Re: Refuted. (Again). Next PRATT?
quote:
Genetic sequences have to be precise. Each of the three billion "letters" has to be right. You can't take one part of the genetic sequences and put it somewhere else.p
And you heard this where? Virtually all of the amino acids can be coded for by 3 to 4 different series of "letters." That kind of proves your sequence claim to be false. Furthermore, meosis results in the mixing up of genetic sequences. And let's remember that viral vectoring has resulted in scientists and highschool students (myself years ago) in producing organisms with traits that normally would not have occured in natural. We took part of a genetic sequence spliced into another and we got glowing bacteria. That would seem to fly in the face of your claim. Your claim would implictly argue that adding genetic sequences to another parts results in a non-viable organism. That simply not true. A example of this would be the research at the genetic labs at the University of Hawaii where researchers removed genes from a octopus and spliced them into mice zygotes. The mice glow under UV light and they were fertile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-14-2007 6:17 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 305 (395055)
04-14-2007 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by City_on_a_Hill
04-14-2007 6:17 PM


Re: Refuted. (Again). Next PRATT?
When I'm talking about letters, I mean, ACTG, the letters that make up the human genome.
Now find out what "base pairs" means.
Genetic sequences have to be precise. Each of the three billion "letters" has to be right. You can't take one part of the genetic sequences and put it somewhere else.
You'll believe anything, won't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-14-2007 6:17 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 305 (395056)
04-14-2007 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by City_on_a_Hill
04-14-2007 5:40 PM


We've already discussed this!
Evolution cannot be observed, tested or repeated. Claims that we can observe evidence for the theory of evolution are completely unfounded.
*Ahem*
Edited by Chiroptera, : New subtitle.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-14-2007 5:40 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 81 of 305 (395057)
04-14-2007 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by City_on_a_Hill
04-14-2007 5:49 PM


Re: You're kidding right?
Haha! Now I know you are joking!
You had us going for a bit there, but you gave it away with your other posts.
You say that fossils should be tranistional. We point out that they are.
You say that transitonal fossils should have features present in different animals. We point out that they do.
You say that "tranisitional" only makes sense as a word if you believe in evolution.
Since you are the one that brought up "tranisional" in the first place, you've pretty much given away the store. You're an evolutionist playing Devil's advocate.
You really had me going for a bit there, though. Good game.
Here's a great one to use for people in the future though.
"You guys claim that all numers are transitional. You say that there's a 1 and that there's a 5, but then shouldn't there be a... I don't know, a "3" or something?"
"Actually there is a 3"
"Oh, sure, you say that now, but what about a 2 or a 4?"
"Yeah, we've got a 2 and a 4"
"Oh yeah, but what's in between 2 and 3?"
"That would be 2.5"
"Yeah, but then what's between 2.5 and 3?"
"2.75"
"Oh yeah, well, I don't believe in decimals, therefore God created 1 and 5 and there is no 2,3 or 4! Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm taking my ball and I'm going home."
That's a great one! Use it in some other thread, you'll really trick the fundies into thinking you're one of them

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-14-2007 5:49 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 82 of 305 (395058)
04-14-2007 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Dr Adequate
04-14-2007 4:16 PM


Re: Refuted. (Again). Next PRATT?
quote:
I just looked up the figures, and I could store the human genome eight times over on my C drive. And my computer is hardly the world's most sophisticated.
You only have a 24 gig harddrive?
I can store 190 copies on my combined 3 harddrives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2007 4:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2007 7:14 PM obvious Child has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 83 of 305 (395059)
04-14-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by obvious Child
04-14-2007 7:09 PM


Re: Refuted. (Again). Next PRATT?
You only have a 24 gig harddrive?
No, I have a 6 gig hard-drive, and * coughs gently * a byte is eight bits.
I said it wasn't the world's most sophisticated computer, didn't I?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by obvious Child, posted 04-14-2007 7:09 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by obvious Child, posted 04-14-2007 7:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 84 of 305 (395061)
04-14-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Dr Adequate
04-14-2007 7:14 PM


Re: Refuted. (Again). Next PRATT?
I thought that the storage of the human genome only took 3 gigs of harddrive space.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2007 7:14 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2007 7:51 PM obvious Child has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 85 of 305 (395063)
04-14-2007 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by obvious Child
04-14-2007 7:31 PM


Storing the human genome
Less.
Look, 3 billion letters = 6 billion bits.
GB stands for gigabyte.
A byte is eight bits.
Perhaps you're thinking of storing only one letter per byte, but you can store four. My way is better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by obvious Child, posted 04-14-2007 7:31 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by obvious Child, posted 04-14-2007 7:59 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 86 of 305 (395064)
04-14-2007 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by City_on_a_Hill
04-14-2007 6:20 PM


Re: You're kidding right?
ROFL! "Having characteristics of two or more different organisms" is a pretty accurate definition of "transitional" in paleontology. E.g. Transitional Fossil.
I'm sure you've heard of homology. Many animals share common characteristics.
They're only transitional if you've already assumed the theory of evolution to be correct.
"Having characteristics of two or more different organisms" is still a pretty accurate definition of "transitional" in paleontology, as shown at my refernce; and "having characteristics of two or more different organisms" does not presuppose how the organism came to be that way.
However, the obvious and consistent pattern in which such fossils are found make the source pretty obvious.
Actually, lots of them do. Partially formed but, of course, fully fuctional.
Article? You're just making an assertion without using any support.
You could start with a basic understanding of biology and the theory of evolution. Like sixth-grade level. All organisms are fully-developed and functional. The fact is that what we see is "fully developed" and "functional" changing over time. The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for those observed facts.
But here's a few to get you started.
Life's Grand Design
http://www.karger.com/gazette/64/fernald/art_1_0.htm
Evolution of the Eye: Lessons from Freshman Physics
and Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-14-2007 6:20 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2007 7:58 PM JonF has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 87 of 305 (395067)
04-14-2007 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by JonF
04-14-2007 7:52 PM


Re: You're kidding right?
That eye evolution article, though sound on how the eye evolved, manages to quote Darwin out of context.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by JonF, posted 04-14-2007 7:52 PM JonF has not replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 88 of 305 (395068)
04-14-2007 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Dr Adequate
04-14-2007 7:51 PM


Re: Storing the human genome
Most likely. At 3 gigs, there's not alot of reason for compression no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2007 7:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 89 of 305 (395086)
04-14-2007 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by City_on_a_Hill
04-14-2007 6:17 PM


Re: Refuted. (Again). Next PRATT?
You asked for proof that scientists question evolution.
No, I asked for proof that scientists have scientific reasons that cast doubt on evolution.
They don't.
The claim that the debate among scientists doesn't exist is unfounded.
No, it's not. There's absolutely no scientific debate about the essential accuracy of the evolutionary model.
None whatsoever. The only "debate" that occurs is the misinformation promulgated for religious reasons.
That's a fallacious argument and you know it.
Genetic sequences have to be precise.
No, they don't. You can usually modify more than 60% of a gene before you have any effect whatsoever on the function of its protein product. They don't have to be precise. Redundancy, in fact, is built right into the translation code.
You can't take one part of the genetic sequences and put it somewhere else.
Sure you can. In fact it happens spontaneously; such sequences are called "transposable elements." These kinds of changes are the source of great diversity.
This is just a repetition of your claims. "Creationwiki" offers no evidence for its assertions, either. Did you look up those articles to see what they said?
Plus, I love the laughable assertion that yeast are somehow smart enough to "genetically engineer" themselves. Yeast were able to master what it took humanity centuries to learn? Yeah, right. You sure picked a winner with "creationwiki."
If you think you posted some kind of refutation of the Hall material, you're quite mistaken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-14-2007 6:17 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

Neutralmind
Member (Idle past 6124 days)
Posts: 183
From: Finland
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 90 of 305 (395097)
04-14-2007 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by City_on_a_Hill
04-14-2007 10:57 AM


That's simply not true. Many atheists question evolution because it just doesn't add up.
I'm one, but I think they're looking for a scientist though.
And welcome to evc City_on_a_Hill

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-14-2007 10:57 AM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Chiroptera, posted 04-14-2007 10:35 PM Neutralmind 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