Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,095 Year: 5,352/9,624 Month: 377/323 Week: 17/204 Day: 17/21 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
Panda
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 406 of 752 (587895)
10-21-2010 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by dennis780
10-21-2010 3:01 AM


Re: The flood myth
dennis780 writes:
Continental uplifting does NOT occur in Egypt.
Geological history of the uplift-structures in the Western Desert (Egypt, Libya)
quote:
The regional stratigraphy is continuous across North Africa and have been controlled by the tectonic history of individual basins. Deformational events in the region, most of them minor, are recorded by unconformities reflecting basin tilting, uplift, and erosion of intracratonic structural axes at various throughout the Phanerozoic. The main old deformational events occured in the Precambrium to Early Cambrium, Late Silurian to Early Devonian, Carboniferous to Permian.
Next time: JFGI.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by dennis780, posted 10-21-2010 3:01 AM dennis780 has not replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 407 of 752 (587907)
10-21-2010 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by dennis780
10-20-2010 4:17 AM


Fun With Numbers and Lies
Hi Dennis,
If you bothered to look at the bible for even 30 minutes, you notice that every man written about gives their age.
This is, of course, not true. Perhaps you should try looking at it for more than thirty minutes.
600 of Noahs years before the flood as 6000 (1 = 1000 as written in Genesis)
First, Genesis says no such thing. Second, are you aware that 600 multiplied by 1000 is 600 000, not 6000? Third, why the hell should we care what you say when you prove yourself incapable of performing simple arithmetic?
I win.
Sure kid. Have a Kewpie doll. Whatever makes you happy.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by dennis780, posted 10-20-2010 4:17 AM dennis780 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 408 of 752 (587997)
10-21-2010 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by dennis780
10-20-2010 3:45 AM


Re: Genetic Information
So because my christian God is wrong, there cannot be any higher being?
Dennis, there are no gods at all, Christian or otherwise.
Though this subject is very tough to debate, because the information in the Bible is not accepted by evolutionists.
I absolutely accept that the Bible makes a variety of claims.
If the Bible is truely the written word of God, then 100% of it must be true. If it is not, then it was not God directed, and Christianity is not 100% true.
So what you're saying is that if any of the Bible can be shown to be false, you'll stop believing in God?
If natural selection and macroevolution over time is true, then your entire belief system is based on just-in-time coincidences, hahahaha.
Again, theism is the belief structure predicated on absurd, just-in-time coincidence. Atheism is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by dennis780, posted 10-20-2010 3:45 AM dennis780 has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4297 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 409 of 752 (588018)
10-22-2010 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by dennis780
10-20-2010 3:45 AM


Re: Genetic Information
There is physical evidence of biblical stories however.
So what.There is physical evidence in Gone With the Wind & The Illiad. Such evidence is speculative any fictious or mythical story can have real evidence.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by dennis780, posted 10-20-2010 3:45 AM dennis780 has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8612
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 410 of 752 (588024)
10-22-2010 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by dennis780
10-21-2010 3:01 AM


Whales in the Dunes.
Continental uplifting does NOT occur in Egypt. If uplifting does not occur, sea shells should not be found in the desert. Subsidance occurs on almost all edges of most techtonic plates.
Oh, my.
You do know that the area of earth we call Egypt was not always desert, don't you? Any idea how deep the water was over this area? Or how many times it was submerged, dried out and re-submerged?
And to be accurate, subsidence, in this case more accurately called subduction, occurs in almost half the cases. Care to guess what is happening to that part of the neighboring plate it is subducting under?
Subsidence usually refers to an area of crust losing elevation because the underlaying structure cannot support the crust or because a lot of new material has been added like in an ice age.
Except you don't believe in Ice Ages, do you? I mean the evidence we have shows the last one occurred some 25,000 years ago, well before the earth was even formed, right?
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by dennis780, posted 10-21-2010 3:01 AM dennis780 has not replied

Tram law
Member (Idle past 4812 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 411 of 752 (589679)
11-03-2010 7:41 PM


I'm watching an old episode of the original "The Outer Limits" called "The Sixth Finger".
In it, a scientists is able to increase a man's intelligence by using weird energies to quickly evolve him. As the man's intelligence evolves, his head and brain increase dramatically in size and he develops increased intelligence beyond genius level and other abilities such as telekinesis.
So, I'm not inquiring about TK, what I am inquiring about is that if our brain were to increase in size over time, would our intelligence and reasoning abilities increase over time?

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by Nij, posted 11-03-2010 9:16 PM Tram law has not replied

Nij
Member (Idle past 4997 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 412 of 752 (589698)
11-03-2010 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by Tram law
11-03-2010 7:41 PM


Brain size is not related to intelligence. This has been known for decades.
However, this is only concerning modern humans who barely live past the age of 70 in the mean. Were we to live significantly longer -- maybe 2 centuries would be enough, maybe more; I'll try doing some maths to get some guesstimates -- it is likely we would no longer be able to form new memories or connections.
There simply wouldn't be enough space in the brain left, both physically and biologically: there's only so much room for dendrites and axons, there's only so many neurons to form them.
In that case, yes, having a larger brain might help, but you'd have to get around the issue of mortality to even bother considering it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Tram law, posted 11-03-2010 7:41 PM Tram law has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 413 of 752 (598373)
12-30-2010 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SwampDonkey
06-20-2010 2:51 AM


Message 1 of 412 (566197)
06-20-2010 1:51 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just finished reading a brief review of a paper in Nature 467, 929-934 (21 Oct. 2010) Nick Lane and William Martin.
This is a quote from the paper.
" All complex life is composed of eukaryotic (nucleated) cells. The eukaryotic cell arose from prokaryotes just once in four billion years, and otherwise prokaryotes show no tendency to evolve greater complexity. Why not? Prokaryotic genome size is constrained by bioenergetics. The endosymbiosis that gave rise to mitochondria restructured the distribution of DNA in relation to bioenergetic membranes, permitting a remarkable 200,000-fold expansion in the number of genes expressed. This vast leap in genomic capacity was strictly dependent on mitochondrial power, and prerequisite to eukaryote complexity: the key innovation en route to multicellular life"
Later Lane and Martin state:
"The transition to complex life on Earth was a unique event that hinged on a bioenergetic jump afforded by spatially combinatorial relations between two cells and two genomes (endosymbiosis), rather than natural selection acting on mutations accumulated gradually among physically isolated prokarykotic individuals. Given the energetic nature of these arguments, the same is likely to be true of any complex life elsewhere"
My question is: Does this mean the authors are saying that natural selection was not the cause of the evolution of the eukaryotic cell from the prokaryotic cell?
And if true what effect does that have for The Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory of gradual descent by random mutution and natural selection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SwampDonkey, posted 06-20-2010 2:51 AM SwampDonkey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by Rahvin, posted 12-30-2010 3:27 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 415 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-30-2010 3:44 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 419 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2010 9:50 PM shadow71 has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 414 of 752 (598381)
12-30-2010 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 413 by shadow71
12-30-2010 3:08 PM


My question is: Does this mean the authors are saying that natural selection was not the cause of the evolution of the eukaryotic cell from the prokaryotic cell?
No. They're saying that complex life was dependent on the formation of mitochondria, and that this was apparently an event of unique importance. It's possible that similar adaptations from prokaryotes may have happened at other times, but that the existing eukaryotes thought they were tasty and/or out-competed them. Or that we just aren't aware of them - we aren't omniscient after all.
Nothing whatsoever in the material you quoted contradicts the theory of evolution. At all.
[qs]And if true what effect does that have for The Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory of gradual descent by random mutution and natural selection? /qs
None. Random mutations of unique significance happen all throughout history. All vertebrates are related to a common ancestor, just as all eukaryotes are related to a single common ancestor. The development of the backbone was no less a singular and massively important development in the history of modern biodiversity than the development of mitochondria - without either adaptation, life on Earth would look MUCH different than it does today.
You could take basically any example of an extremely successful adaptation and say similar things.
But one-time mutations that make massive effects on the appearance of biodiversity a few million years later do not contradict the theory of evolution - rather, they support it.
The development of mitochondria allowed for the development of more complex organisms which were able to take over a rather large unoccupied niche and thrived. That's all, and that's exactly what we'd expect given mutation and natural selection.
Evolution doesn't require that similar adaptations, if successful, must happen repeatedly and independently. It does happen sometimes (see the eye), but evolution is not guided by anything more than survival and reproduction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by shadow71, posted 12-30-2010 3:08 PM shadow71 has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 415 of 752 (598387)
12-30-2010 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 413 by shadow71
12-30-2010 3:08 PM


My question is: Does this mean the authors are saying that natural selection was not the cause of the evolution of the eukaryotic cell from the prokaryotic cell?
No, they're saying that the transition didn't arrise from the normal gradual accumulation of mutations but rather by the combination of organisms.
Take a look at:
Symbiogenesis - Wikipedia
And if true what effect does that have for The Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory of gradual descent by random mutution and natural selection?
More details on how shit went down...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by shadow71, posted 12-30-2010 3:08 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by shadow71, posted 12-30-2010 4:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 416 of 752 (598393)
12-30-2010 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by New Cat's Eye
12-30-2010 3:44 PM


Thanks Rahvim and Catholic Scientist.
The reviewer of the paper at SelectSmart.com Selectors, Quizzes, Flowcharts, Polls, Articles, Commentary one Pate De Parodic stated after reviewing the paper:
"Basicially the problem is that a primitive bacteria cannot evolve mitochondria by 'jugglilng its genes'. It would require that one of these primitive bacteria absorb and adapt by swallowing or absorbing an entirely new cell. On earth this has never been observed happening with prokaryotic cells. However eukaryotic cells indeed have been observed to do this. For a prokaryotic cell to transform to a eukaryotic cell it would have to do things that seem to only happen in eukaroytic cells"
What does he mean by that statement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-30-2010 3:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-30-2010 4:15 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 421 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2010 9:56 PM shadow71 has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 417 of 752 (598395)
12-30-2010 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by shadow71
12-30-2010 4:07 PM


"Basicially the problem is that a primitive bacteria cannot evolve mitochondria by 'jugglilng its genes'. It would require that one of these primitive bacteria absorb and adapt by swallowing or absorbing an entirely new cell. On earth this has never been observed happening with prokaryotic cells. However eukaryotic cells indeed have been observed to do this. For a prokaryotic cell to transform to a eukaryotic cell it would have to do things that seem to only happen in eukaroytic cells"
What does he mean by that statement?
They're trying to "poke holes" in evolution...
Did you read about the Endosymbiotic Theory that I linked to?
The idea is that some organelles were originally a seperate thing that then got absorbed into a prokaryote.
This guys is saying that it hasn't been observed yet, so therefore it can't happen, ergo there's a problem with evolution... or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by shadow71, posted 12-30-2010 4:07 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by shadow71, posted 12-30-2010 5:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 418 of 752 (598402)
12-30-2010 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by New Cat's Eye
12-30-2010 4:15 PM


[gs]Did you read about the Endosymbiotic Theory that I linked to?[/gs]
I did but my understanding of that article is that the theory has not been fully accepted. Lane and Martin state that a prokaryote has evolved once in four billion years into a eukaryote. So I am still quite confused.
Thanks for your help

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-30-2010 4:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2010 9:52 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 506 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-03-2011 11:26 AM shadow71 has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 419 of 752 (598438)
12-30-2010 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 413 by shadow71
12-30-2010 3:08 PM


My question is: Does this mean the authors are saying that natural selection was not the cause of the evolution of the eukaryotic cell from the prokaryotic cell?
No, natural selection would still be operating --- the endosymbiotes would have succeeded because endosymbiosis was a good idea.
And if true what effect does that have for The Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory of gradual descent by random mutution and natural selection?
Well, first of all, that isn't the neo-Darwinian theory: the theory incorporates everything that actually happens. This includes mutation and natural selection but is not limited to them.
Second, what has happened is indeed mutation plus selection, plus a bit of lateral gene transfer. The fact that we can "chunk" these events at a higher level and call it "the origin of obligate endosymbiosis" doesn't stop it from also being a set of lower-level events.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by shadow71, posted 12-30-2010 3:08 PM shadow71 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 420 of 752 (598439)
12-30-2010 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 418 by shadow71
12-30-2010 5:12 PM


I did but my understanding of that article is that the theory has not been fully accepted.
Who are the hold-outs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by shadow71, posted 12-30-2010 5:12 PM shadow71 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