Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
34 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, jar, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Theodoric (8 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,486 Year: 20,522/19,786 Month: 919/2,023 Week: 427/392 Day: 43/74 Hour: 4/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 181 of 752 (576148)
08-22-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Bolder-dash
08-22-2010 9:27 PM


In regards to crashfrogs claim that his experiment was confirming the existence of natural selection and random mutation through predictability, I would say that would be akin to saying that cigarette smoking would also be testing the predictability of evolution.

If mutagens didn't restore the ability of bacteria to synthesize histidine - and remember, we didn't do anything else to the bacteria besides expose them to a mutagen - then what did?

Did it happen by magic?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-22-2010 9:27 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 182 of 752 (576154)
08-22-2010 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Bolder-dash
08-22-2010 10:14 PM


According to you, there is no such thing as being good or bad for you, just so long as it let's you live one more day to have sex.

You are lying to me about my own opinions. How do you think that's going to work out?

People take longer to die from cancer than they do from traumatic head injury.

That was a bizarre non sequitur.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-22-2010 10:14 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Tram law
Member (Idle past 3019 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 183 of 752 (576939)
08-26-2010 3:19 PM


What evolutionary purpose does laughter serve? Have the actual physical functions that trigger laughter been discovered?

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2010 3:33 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 187 by onifre, posted 08-27-2010 5:25 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 421 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 184 of 752 (576941)
08-26-2010 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Tram law
08-26-2010 3:19 PM


What evolutionary purpose does laughter serve? Have the actual physical functions that trigger laughter been discovered?

Some things such as laughter might have a cultural component as well.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Tram law, posted 08-26-2010 3:19 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Tram law
Member (Idle past 3019 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 185 of 752 (576977)
08-26-2010 6:27 PM


Also, what evolutionary purpose does having a porus(sp?) skin serve?

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2010 6:59 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 188 by Omnivorous, posted 08-27-2010 6:00 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 186 of 752 (576983)
08-26-2010 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Tram law
08-26-2010 6:27 PM


Your pores are for sweating through. I'm fairly sure. This cools you down in hot weather as the sweat evaporates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Tram law, posted 08-26-2010 6:27 PM Tram law has not yet responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 1265 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 187 of 752 (577222)
08-27-2010 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Tram law
08-26-2010 3:19 PM


What evolutionary purpose does laughter serve? Have the actual physical functions that trigger laughter been discovered?

I've always thought - and this is just a guess - that, like sex feeling really good makes you want to do more of it and in turn continue the human race, so too does laughter make conversations enjoyable and helps promote dialogue between people. If sitting around a campfire and talking only included boring, or angry, or pointless conversations, then there would be no fun, or good feeling, in sitting around conversing.

But conversing is how we also spread information. Critical information. So we need to talk. Maybe laughter from dialogue helped us want to talk.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Tram law, posted 08-26-2010 3:19 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by ringo, posted 08-27-2010 6:50 PM onifre has not yet responded

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 188 of 752 (577228)
08-27-2010 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Tram law
08-26-2010 6:27 PM


Sweating for food
Also, what evolutionary purpose does having a porus(sp?) skin serve?

Skin like ours allowed our ancestors to run down faster prey who lacked the ability to regulate their body heat through perspiration.

I don't know if that's the only explanation, but it seems sufficient.


Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Tram law, posted 08-26-2010 6:27 PM Tram law has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17531
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 189 of 752 (577240)
08-27-2010 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by onifre
08-27-2010 5:25 PM


Onifre writes:

But conversing is how we also spread information. Critical information. So we need to talk. Maybe laughter from dialogue helped us want to talk.


"A funny thing happened to me on the way to the cave the other day...." Bad things that almost happened can be funny and serve as cautionary tales at the same time.


Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by onifre, posted 08-27-2010 5:25 PM onifre has not yet responded

dennis780
Member (Idle past 3091 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 190 of 752 (577291)
08-27-2010 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Tram law
08-22-2010 2:17 PM


A fact within, I agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Tram law, posted 08-22-2010 2:17 PM Tram law has not yet responded

dennis780
Member (Idle past 3091 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 191 of 752 (577292)
08-27-2010 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by jar
08-22-2010 2:23 PM


I agree with you as well, we should follow where the evidence points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by jar, posted 08-22-2010 2:23 PM jar has not yet responded

dennis780
Member (Idle past 3091 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 192 of 752 (577293)
08-27-2010 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by abrown9
08-22-2010 5:44 PM


Micro evolution yes. My specific point is that mutation in documented experiments such as these do not point to gradual increased complexity, or indroduction of new information (genetically speaking). although physical attributes did change, they affected the family negatively, and used existing information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by abrown9, posted 08-22-2010 5:44 PM abrown9 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-28-2010 12:46 AM dennis780 has responded

dennis780
Member (Idle past 3091 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 193 of 752 (577299)
08-28-2010 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dr Adequate
08-22-2010 6:14 PM


I'm at work, and responding on my iPhone, so you will have to excuse my short reply.

My secret for measuring information is genetic complexity.
"I thought you had already admitted that" I completely agree with genetic difference in dog species. I still want
a reference to support your claim.

"In this case, it's both. I have long experience of reading creationist literature."

This is STILL an opinion. Two people can read the same literature and come to separate conclusions about the findings.

"And if creationists asserting stuff, without evidence, without references, about experiments they didn't do, was in any way a substitute for evidence, then creationism would be on a much firmer footing than it actually is."

My experiment is documented. I'm not required to preform any experiments i use to defend an opinion. If this were the case, this foru
Would be very quiet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2010 6:14 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-28-2010 12:44 AM dennis780 has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 194 of 752 (577307)
08-28-2010 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by dennis780
08-28-2010 12:01 AM


My secret for measuring information is genetic complexity.

* sighs *

And how do you measure genetic complexity?

Two people can read the same literature and come to separate conclusions about the findings.

And in this particular case one of them will be flat-out wrong. That would be you.

My experiment is documented.

There is nothing whatsoever which "documents" the claims you have made about the fruit fly experiments. There are false assertions by creationists, of course, but that is not documentation for creationist claims, those are just the claims.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by dennis780, posted 08-28-2010 12:01 AM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by dennis780, posted 08-28-2010 6:51 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 195 of 752 (577308)
08-28-2010 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by dennis780
08-27-2010 11:53 PM


My specific point is that mutation in documented experiments such as these do not point to gradual increased complexity, or indroduction of new information ...

Then your specific point is wrong. Obviously a new allele is new information. This is because DNA contains information, and because new things are new.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by dennis780, posted 08-27-2010 11:53 PM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by dennis780, posted 08-28-2010 7:00 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019