Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8926 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2019 5:10 AM
24 online now:
AZPaul3, celestialGyoud, PaulK (3 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,204 Year: 15,240/19,786 Month: 1,963/3,058 Week: 337/404 Day: 4/51 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
2425
...
51NextFF
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 331 of 752 (580285)
09-08-2010 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Tram law
09-08-2010 1:09 PM


The whole 10% thing seems to be a bit of an urban myth.

Link writes:

Though an alluring idea, the "10 percent myth" is so wrong it is almost laughable, says neurologist Barry Gordon at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. Link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Tram law, posted 09-08-2010 1:09 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 332 of 752 (580288)
09-08-2010 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Coyote
09-08-2010 1:12 PM


Re: 10% of the brain
quote:
I think the 10% figure is a marketing ploy for self help books and psychics

Fixed it for you...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Coyote, posted 09-08-2010 1:12 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Tram law
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 333 of 752 (580290)
09-08-2010 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by jar
09-08-2010 1:11 PM



What makes you think only 10% of your brain gets used?

It's what I've been told and taught all my life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 1:11 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Huntard, posted 09-08-2010 2:08 PM Tram law has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 334 of 752 (580292)
09-08-2010 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Tram law
09-08-2010 1:58 PM


Tram law writes:

It's what I've been told and taught all my life.


It's wrong though. Follow straggler's link in Message 331 to see what an actual neurologist has to say about it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Tram law, posted 09-08-2010 1:58 PM Tram law has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Tram law, posted 09-08-2010 2:22 PM Huntard has responded

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 335 of 752 (580295)
09-08-2010 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Huntard
09-08-2010 2:08 PM


I've already read it. I like to contemplate things for a while before I come to any decisions though.

Are there any other resources that agree with him? Has this been tested out with other scientists and have results been placed in other scientific journals?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Huntard, posted 09-08-2010 2:08 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Huntard, posted 09-08-2010 2:35 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 337 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2010 2:46 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 338 by onifre, posted 09-08-2010 6:29 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 336 of 752 (580296)
09-08-2010 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Tram law
09-08-2010 2:22 PM


well, Wiki has an article about it. I suggest you start there and follow the link under "references" for more material on it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Tram law, posted 09-08-2010 2:22 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 337 of 752 (580297)
09-08-2010 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Tram law
09-08-2010 2:22 PM


10%
Well if you really think that you can operate effectively with only 10% of your brain we can always test this out.

Which 90% do you think you can do without?

(**Straggler revs up his cranial saw**)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Tram law, posted 09-08-2010 2:22 PM Tram law has not yet responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 1180 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 338 of 752 (580341)
09-08-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Tram law
09-08-2010 2:22 PM


Here's an easy to follow link: Washington.Edu

Or this one too: positscience

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Tram law, posted 09-08-2010 2:22 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3005 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 339 of 752 (580392)
09-08-2010 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by jar
09-08-2010 8:32 AM


Re: Claims
quote:
You can start by reading this thread called "Looking for the Super-Genome. -And it ain't found".

Okay. I have a few points to make here, but first a question.

Are we going to change the subject of our discussion to this particular topic, because there is alot of information to go over to get to my evidence against your claim.

First, if you are claiming that Oetzi was alive during Adams life, then you are to some extent saying that the Biblical account of a person named Adam was correct, since there is no mention of Adam in any non-religious texts. So if the Bible is all we have to go on, then you are wrong. But I first want to clear up a few questions:

Where did the name Oetzi come from? From the discoverers? Or was that his real name?

Where was he found?

What condition was he in (I'm speaking more to the soft tissue, since I am aware that he had shoes, and he was a certain height, I can easily assume that his clothes and his bones were intact)?

Now to my points. If you are saying that the Biblical acount of Adam is true, then all people would have been killed in the flood, except for noahs family. So it is possible that he lived before the flood, but I don't know enough about this person to offer any educated assumptions of any kind.

Next would be the age issue, I need to know what method was used to determine age. The reason for this is because the Bible tells of many people who were 10 to 12 feet in height, and supposed 'giants' (such as the giants in the Bible (such as Goliath and the Gibeonites) much taller. If age estimates were based on physical features, then the age if determined from an ID bias would probably make him much younger. But again, I'm not sure how they determined this.

I need more information about Oetzi specfically before I can argue this further...but I can address some other issues.

quote:
The genetic information shows us that the critters and plants and people then did NOT have "all the genes necessary to explain the variety of life we see around us". In fact, the genes were almost identical to what exists today, a sub-group as opposed to a super-group.

First, the genetic possibilities of two parents, even today (using humans' 23 chromosomes) have billions of genetic possibilities for each child.

Second, it would be extremly likely that genetic loss would occur at a high rate, but no higher than today (even today, since I do not have the gene required to make any of the people I know). The existance of a 'super-genome' seems unlikely, and also very undefined, but if anyone would have had it, it would have been Adam and Eve.

If each child only inherits half of their genetic makeup from each individual, the first generation would have lost half of the total genes (depending on dominant and recessive of Adam and Eve).

So now you have half the information lost in each individual, but since each child is different, and more than likely contains different genes that the others do not have, most of the total genetic information would be passed, but not ALL. As each family line separates, each one would have information not found in the other lines, which is no different than we see today.

As well, the Bible talks about the firmament, a layer of water around the earth, that would have deflected the suns harmful rays, so dna breakdown would have been at a slower rate (though I cannot say what rate this would be, so I'm going with genetic breakdown that occurs today to be safe).

Adam and Eve were also created with a perfect genome (well, techinally, only Adam was created, since Eve was made from Adams rib, which could point to existing genetic information was used to create Eve). But even soon after, the small amount of mutations that occured would have been minimal. It would take thousands of years to causes genetic breakdown. Again, this is something that we see today, particularily in humans.

I'm not sure if this answers your questions, since I kind of took a biblical approach to it. I need more information on the gene point you made on the other thread as well, so I can respond.

Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 8:32 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2010 11:04 PM dennis780 has responded
 Message 342 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 11:06 PM dennis780 has responded

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3005 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 340 of 752 (580399)
09-08-2010 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Huntard
09-08-2010 8:34 AM


Re: Claims
quote:
This means that unlike your previous statements, you now admit that addition can be made to DNA.

No, as I said before, the wolf contained all required genetic information. Dwarfism is a deleterious condition that alters or removes MT1-MMP. The MT1-MMP deficiency is a loss of genetic code, that causes a physical deformity. No new functional information, just a loss of functional information.

quote:
No remains of shortlegged wolves were fouhnd.

So every wolf that has died has become a fossil. So you know for certain that NO wolf ever has aquired this trait under any circumstances. Thanks.

quote:
Therefore, the wolves from which domestic dogs were bred did not have this allele, ergo it was an addition.

Already responded. And most all domestic dogs are extremely unfit in comparison to wolves. They require constant medical attention, and have conditions including back problems (daschund), breathing problems (pug, and many other short snouted breeds), cartilage deficiency (Irish wolfhound, Dalmation, Greyhound and other tall-skinny breeds of dogs).

quote:
It was an DNA insertion that caused this.

I already responded. Dwarfism is a genetic deletion.

quote:
This means an addition to the DNA you said couldn't happen.

Because it didn't. And I never claimed that mutation cannot cause insertion, but rather than the insertion causes a loss of functional information, rather than a gain, like you would claim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Huntard, posted 09-08-2010 8:34 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2010 11:10 PM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 345 by Vacate, posted 09-08-2010 11:20 PM dennis780 has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 341 of 752 (580401)
09-08-2010 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by dennis780
09-08-2010 10:51 PM


Re: Claims
First, the genetic possibilities of two parents, even today (using humans' 23 chromosomes) have billions of genetic possibilities for each child.

Sure, but how many different chromosome homologues are there among two individuals? Four, is all. And then you go and make it worse:

Adam and Eve were also created with a perfect genome (well, techinally, only Adam was created, since Eve was made from Adams rib, which could point to existing genetic information was used to create Eve).

Kind of cuts the information available by half, doesn't it, if Eve is Adam's parthenogenetic clone? That's only two different homologues per chromosome; two alleles per gene. That's it, that's all the genetic diversity in human beings inagaddadavida, honey. And regardless how perfect their genome may have been it still has to be a human genome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by dennis780, posted 09-08-2010 10:51 PM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by dennis780, posted 09-08-2010 11:45 PM crashfrog has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31180
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 342 of 752 (580403)
09-08-2010 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by dennis780
09-08-2010 10:51 PM


Re: Claims
First, if you are claiming that Oetzi was alive during Adams life, then you are to some extent saying that the Biblical account of a person named Adam was correct, since there is no mention of Adam in any non-religious texts. So if the Bible is all we have to go on, then you are wrong. But I first want to clear up a few questions:

Of course the Biblical Garden of Eden is not factual. I'm saying that Oetzi was alive during the period that the Bible places the character Adam.

Where did the name Oetzi come from? From the discoverers? Or was that his real name?

LOL. From the discoverers.

What condition was he in (I'm speaking more to the soft tissue, since I am aware that he had shoes, and he was a certain height, I can easily assume that his clothes and his bones were intact)?

Remarkable shape.

Now to my points. If you are saying that the Biblical acount of Adam is true, then all people would have been killed in the flood, except for noahs family. So it is possible that he lived before the flood, but I don't know enough about this person to offer any educated assumptions of any kind.

Of course neither the account of Adam or the Biblical Flood are factual.

Next would be the age issue, I need to know what method was used to determine age. The reason for this is because the Bible tells of many people who were 10 to 12 feet in height, and supposed 'giants' (such as the giants in the Bible (such as Goliath and the Gibeonites) much taller. If age estimates were based on physical features, then the age if determined from an ID bias would probably make him much younger. But again, I'm not sure how they determined this.

It depends on what you mean by age, how old he was at the time of his death or how long ago he lived.

The genetic point is that Oetzi allows us to look at several human samples as well as samples (of course we already have many other samples going back long before even the Garden of Eden) of plants, fungus, other animals, woods and skins. The interesting point is that there was nothing unusual about any of the samples, no sign that there has ever been some "perfect" genome.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by dennis780, posted 09-08-2010 10:51 PM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by dennis780, posted 09-09-2010 12:03 AM jar has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 343 of 752 (580405)
09-08-2010 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by dennis780
09-08-2010 11:04 PM


Re: Claims
And most all domestic dogs are extremely unfit in comparison to wolves.

Well, to be fair, they're unfit for the wolves' environment. They're quite well fit for the dog's environment - inside human domiciles.

That's the thing about fitness - it's context dependent. You'd make a terribly unfit shark, but that's not the environment you inhabit. Presumably you're a little better suited for where you actually do live.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by dennis780, posted 09-08-2010 11:04 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

dennis780
Member (Idle past 3005 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 344 of 752 (580406)
09-08-2010 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by crashfrog
09-08-2010 9:38 AM


Re: What's the problem?
quote:
That's correct, but again - 3 dice or 3 million, the dice are going to follow entirely predictable probability distributions.

I agree with you. But here inlies the problem. Since only certain arrangements of nucleotides contain functional purpose, almost all of your random 'dice rolls' would be useless numbers.

quote:
"Random" doesn't mean "unreplicatable." It means "probabilistic."

As I said before, the odds of two separate experiments getting 2,374,484, would be extremely unlikely. Unless the experiment was repeated millions of times, you should not see the SAME RANDOM mutation take place, since the odds are extremely against this.

quote:
Many documented cases have already been given to you. You've simply incorrectly attributed them to horizontal gene transfer or outright ignored them. I think there's plenty on your plate to respond to as it is.

I'll make you a deal. If you find me 15 examples of genetic mutation of new functional DNA (coding for any protien, trait, or physical attribute that was not present in past organisms of the species), I will concede the genetic arguement. 15 examples would show that beneficial mutations DO occur, and at a rate that COULD explain the driving force behind macro evolution. As I said before, I have four cases, of which NONE offer new functional genetic information that code for something not present in past lines of the organism. If you have thousands, you will win for sure. Just give me the sources, you don't even have to type them, I'll read them.

quote:
Incorrect - we've proved that HGT was not responsible.

Since you agree with me, saying that I am incorrect makes us both wrong. I too, believe that HGT is not the source for new information.

quote:
Incorrect - you've failed to understand what "random" means.

Oh? I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 3 million. Guess what it is. I'll give you one hundred tries. If you are correct, within 100 tries, you should get the same result as me. GO!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2010 9:38 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by caffeine, posted 09-09-2010 4:52 AM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 357 by Wounded King, posted 09-09-2010 6:08 AM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 358 by Huntard, posted 09-09-2010 7:03 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2830 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 345 of 752 (580408)
09-08-2010 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by dennis780
09-08-2010 11:04 PM


Re: Claims
I already responded. Dwarfism is a genetic deletion.

And short legs is not dwarfism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by dennis780, posted 09-08-2010 11:04 PM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by dennis780, posted 09-09-2010 12:06 AM Vacate has responded

RewPrev1
...
2122
23
2425
...
51NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019