|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is not science | |||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
They're only transitional if you've already assumed the theory of evolution to be correct. They are, however, intermediate whatever you assume.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4116 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4116 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: You only have a 24 gig harddrive? I can store 190 copies on my combined 3 harddrives.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4116 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
I thought that the storage of the human genome only took 3 gigs of harddrive space.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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 Designhttp://www.karger.com/gazette/64/fernald/art_1_0.htm Evolution of the Eye: Lessons from Freshman Physics and Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4116 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Most likely. At 3 gigs, there's not alot of reason for compression no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Neutralmind Member (Idle past 6124 days) Posts: 183 From: Finland Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024