Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 7:42 AM
31 online now:
JoeT, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie, RAZD, Tangle (7 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,194 Year: 5,231/19,786 Month: 1,353/873 Week: 249/460 Day: 1/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
15Next
Author Topic:   Faith
nator
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 196 of 216 (140613)
09-07-2004 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by jar
09-06-2004 2:46 PM


quote:
The problem is all you've been seeing are the fruits.

LOL!

Well, I guess that's true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 09-06-2004 2:46 PM jar has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 197 of 216 (140614)
09-07-2004 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by lfen
09-06-2004 4:24 PM


OK, thank you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by lfen, posted 09-06-2004 4:24 PM lfen has not yet responded

    
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 3024 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 198 of 216 (140636)
09-07-2004 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 8:24 PM


riVeRat writes:

I know its not a technical term, but they do use it, I know a few people in the industry. If it can happen it will, they have learn this through the scientific method of objective observation.

Just because something can possibly happen that doesn't mean it ever will. It just means it might.

riVeRat writes:

In other words, if the odds are 100 to 1 that something could happen within a given year, they would look at it and say its more likely that the odds will get beaten, and we will lose, so lets bump up the premiums to cover, just in case.

As I said odds can't get beaten...they're not a challenge, they're just a mathematical tool that are used to work out what will happen on average. If something supposedly has a million to one chance of happening and it happens today that is not in any way beating the odds. If it happens every day regularly then that would be evidence that whoever worked out the odds had got it wrong, not that the odds were being beaten. People use statistics to work out statistical signifigance. You can use probability distributions to work out what the average result will be. Take a Normal distribution for example, it is almost certain that every result will be within 3 standard deviations of the average result. Anything further away from the average than that and the odds become astronomical against it happening, so if it happens you know something is biasing the result.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 8:24 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 4:56 PM happy_atheist has not yet responded

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 3024 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 199 of 216 (140638)
09-07-2004 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 8:19 PM


Of course some people win more than others. Yours odds of winning the lotters don't become less if you've already won the lottery, each lottery is independant of the previous lottery. Theres nothing saying you can't win the lottery more than once. There will be no statistical signifigance to the number of wins people have on the lottery though. That is what the probability distributions are used for, statistical signifigance. If someone won the lottery a statistically signifigant number of times it would imply the lottery was biased, and someone was cheating along the way.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 8:19 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2788 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 200 of 216 (140653)
09-07-2004 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by riVeRraT
09-07-2004 6:18 AM


Well,then given mutations in DNA what is your understanding of and objection to ToE?

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 6:18 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by happy_atheist, posted 09-07-2004 11:45 AM lfen has not yet responded
 Message 204 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 5:05 PM lfen has responded

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 3024 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 201 of 216 (140655)
09-07-2004 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by lfen
09-07-2004 11:43 AM


He asked if it is proven that mutations stand the test of time (I assume he means is it proven that mutations are selected for or against via natural selection). Post some references showing how alelle (sp) frequency has been tracked through a population maybe?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by lfen, posted 09-07-2004 11:43 AM lfen has not yet responded

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 3024 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 202 of 216 (140658)
09-07-2004 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 8:34 PM


riVeRat writes:

Oh one other question. I'm sure you know about the bacteria in the petri dish evolving experiment. It seemed to me the way it was explained, that they evoloved on the spot, after the were developed, by exposing them to an attacking bacteria, and not during the development stage. The offspring did carry on the mutation.
I'm guessing the evolution between bacteria and humans is very different. Why is that, other than the obvious differences between humans and bacteria?

Ok, I think you misunderstood this slightly. The bacteria did not evolve on the spot. The original bacteria was not resistant to the phage. The phage could (and should) kill it totally. However the bacteria reproduce extremely rapidly (an exponential number new bacteria in a day). Somewhere along the way one bacteria reproduces imperfectly and a mutations occurs that makes the NEW bacteria resistant to the phage. This means that the phage cannot kill that bacteria. It is important to note the difference between the original bacteria and the new bacteria. The original bacteria did not change ITSELF, it reproduced and it's offspring contained a mutation that it did not. Thus individuals do not evolve. You do not have an individual bacteria that wasn't resistant suddenly becoming resistant itself. You have future generations becoming resistant.

This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 09-07-2004 10:54 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 8:34 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 5:12 PM happy_atheist has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 30 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 203 of 216 (140715)
09-07-2004 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by happy_atheist
09-07-2004 10:44 AM


Hey, I know your young, but keep what I said in mind, and observe for the next 20 or so years. You might change your mind.

I understand what odds are supposed to be, but it doesn't always work out that way, which leads me to a deeper way of thinking about configuring odds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by happy_atheist, posted 09-07-2004 10:44 AM happy_atheist has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 30 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 204 of 216 (140716)
09-07-2004 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by lfen
09-07-2004 11:43 AM


I am still learning, but for starters, and this doesn't mean I do not accept evolution, or accept creation.

Gaps in evolution, but now they say thats predicted, what a way out.

Bacteria flagellum, and how complex it is for such a simple form of life. Also how compelling it ressembles an electric motor designed by man.
Carbon dating, which gets less accurate the further you go back.

Also I just heard about evidence that supports a rapid cooling of the earth, like a day or so. Had to do with a radioisotope found in rock that shouldn't be there had the rock cooled over a long period of time.

Also, just because we mutate, does that mean we actually become another species? Or just a different form of our former selves. At what point to we grow feathers out of a natural selection need, or mutation? What determines that a feather would grow out of the body of any creature, because in has the need to fly? Sounds like designed evolution to me, or something else.

RNA templates, and the blueprint for life.

The cambrian explosion.

Those are just a few that raise questions in me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by lfen, posted 09-07-2004 11:43 AM lfen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by lfen, posted 09-07-2004 5:31 PM riVeRraT has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 30 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 205 of 216 (140719)
09-07-2004 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by happy_atheist
09-07-2004 11:53 AM


Ok, I get it, but. How did it mutate? Out of neccesity? Or out of design? Obviously there is some kind of defense mechanism designed into bacteria. Built in surviveabilty. Plus that fact that not all of them mutated means something also. It might have to do with it, or by design, bacteria cannot defend itself completely otherwise it would be to strong and not balance out with the rest of nature.

Sidebar: I only say designed to make the conversation interesting, don't take me so literally. I am not dead set on that word, designed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by happy_atheist, posted 09-07-2004 11:53 AM happy_atheist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by happy_atheist, posted 09-07-2004 5:41 PM riVeRraT has responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2788 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 206 of 216 (140729)
09-07-2004 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by riVeRraT
09-07-2004 5:05 PM


River,

The universe shows an incredible synergy. I am not an atheist, though I don't accept the documents of revealed religion.

First understand ToE and understand that it took place on earth and so there is geology to consider. Scientist working in the field and in the lab are pushing back the boundaries and they argue all the evidence that is what peer review is about. Evolution is a theory that ties together an immense amount of data, experiments and observations. If a creationist seizes on an anomaly that may bear investigating but it doesn call into scientific question ToE. Scientist are dealing with anomalous data every day.

Science deals with problems. It doesn't offer final for ever eternal truth. It is a process of continual exploration leading to more problems which on being solved lead to more. This appeals to certain temperments and is very frustrating to other who want a truth once and for all like my dear christian sister who says quite plainly she doesn't want to think about this stuff, but to take care of her family and believe that the church has the answers.

This is important to understand, the ToE is not being forced on the data nor is the ToE a theory designed to frustrate religion. It exists because right now it is scientifically the best explanation of all the date. Creationist have a religious agenda. Scientists have scientific agendas, and some scientist also have religious agendas, both theist and atheist. But the ToE itself is a scientific tool.

The astronomers, geologists, biologists working in their respective fields use the notion of lawful change to explain things. When it fails to do that new theories will be forth coming. If evolution is proved false it won't be by creationists taking potshots at it. The theory will be changed or replaced by scientist because it no longer works for them, and will be replaced with something that does. That is how science works.

Well, this is just my notion. ToE is good enough for now, exciting discoveries are being made,etc. I wait to see what the future brings.

lfen
edited a typo: go => do

This message has been edited by lfen, 09-07-2004 04:41 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 5:05 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 11:35 PM lfen has responded

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 3024 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 207 of 216 (140733)
09-07-2004 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by riVeRraT
09-07-2004 5:12 PM


Mutation is completely random. Mutations occur because the replication of the DNA is not perfect. Mutation doesn't happen in any way by design, there is no forethought in any sense of the term. The reason not all the bacteria mutated is because it is random.

There is no inbuilt survivability mechanism in the bacteria. All that happens is that a mutation occurs that purely by chance gives it some level of resistance to the phage without killing the bacteria in some other way.

When that happens, that bacteria will be more sucessfull than any of the other bacteria so the offspring of that bacteria will dominate untill all the bacteria have this mutation.

The same is true of feathers or anything else. Nothing said that some animal needed feathers. There is no ultimate aim for evolution. It isn't following a plan and there is no goal. The reason some creatures have feathers is because they evolved from other structures slowly through mutation, and each stage of the way there was some survival advantage. The mutations that led there were random, natural selection that picked the mutations is not random. It is fully dependant on the environment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 5:12 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 11:45 PM happy_atheist has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 30 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 208 of 216 (140845)
09-07-2004 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by lfen
09-07-2004 5:31 PM


Yes yes, I agree with all that, but a question.
What God have you determined to be the one you believe in. Or if you don't have name, whats your description of God, and why do you not believe in any revealed religion?

You are also saying your sister is ignoring all that because she probably fears that if she accepts it, then she will have to give up her religion, because the 2 are conflicting. This has been my arguement all along.

I now feel as though we were created because I feel God spoke to me clearly and told me that. How it happened I do not know. But I can bet that most creationalist really don't care since God already told them. It was all the evolutionists that started complaining and saying and saying if you expect me to believe in God, then prove I was created. So yes creation science was then forced to appear, and it goes about its science trying to prove a theory about being created. I see that as no different than science trying to prove evolution all the time. Even though you say it is not, because that is not the scientific method. I hope that is true.

Having said all that, we may in the future find something out that could possibly can the whole ToE, and where will that leave many people? I know a lot of people in this forum won't agree with this, but I can bet you that if creation was proven, alot of athiest would come to know God. To deny this is to deny the truth.

So just what is your God if you don't mind me asking, I am very curious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by lfen, posted 09-07-2004 5:31 PM lfen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by lfen, posted 09-08-2004 2:40 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 212 by lfen, posted 09-08-2004 3:03 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 30 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 209 of 216 (140849)
09-07-2004 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by happy_atheist
09-07-2004 5:41 PM



All that happens is that a mutation occurs that purely by chance gives it some level of resistance to the phage without killing the bacteria in some other way.

Hold the phone, you think this is random? Is that 100% proven?
I don't see that as being random.

I just find it so hard to believe that a species can randomly mutate into something that has a better survivabilty rate by chance. then the mutations are successful, and hold out through natural selection.

It's like opps! I mutated, and just by chance, of all the possible combinations of mutations, this one is going to help me survive. because the enviroment around me has changed, so now I need to change to keep up, and a random mutation is going to keep my species alive.

How could it possibly be random?
Don't you think for one second, that something else might be going on there? And that we can't see everything yet?

I am really enjoying this thread, and this conversation. Sometimes when you hear things put to you differently it sparks a new way of looking at something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by happy_atheist, posted 09-07-2004 5:41 PM happy_atheist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by lfen, posted 09-08-2004 2:05 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 215 by happy_atheist, posted 09-08-2004 8:40 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2788 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 210 of 216 (140881)
09-08-2004 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by riVeRraT
09-07-2004 11:45 PM


I just find it so hard to believe that a species can randomly mutate into something that has a better survivabilty rate by chance. then the mutations are successful, and hold out through natural selection.

A species doesn't mutate at all. Mutations occur to genes, mutation just means a change in the sequence of the bases of the DNA. This is where I've advised you to read up on population genetics. The monk Mendal in cross breeding peas was I believe (someone correct me if I'm mistaken) the first to study genetics.

A mutation in a gene changes it so that it doesn't create the protein it did before. Often that means the organism with the mutated gene dies. There are lots of bacteria, let's say this species will grow and divide every hour. Some of them will have genes that will be mutated in a way that is lethal. But in a large population of bacteria one of them may experience some sort of accidental mutation to the region the phage attaches to such that say the phage can't attach there (I don't know if that is what was found or not this is just an example). When it divides there are now 2 bacteria that won't be killed by phages. All around the phage are killing and infecting non resistant bacteria leaving more room and food for the resistant bacteria. They divide again and now there are 4, 8, 16 and doing the math pretty soon all the bacteria in the dish are resistant.

Now what if this had happened in a petri dish with no phage? well, the non resistant bacteria would thrive also. But really, it's time for you to find a good book on this, even maybe a tape or two from the library. I don't have a t.v. so I don't know what to recommend but I'm sure there are good science tapes on this. Books are better cause you can take your time and go back over the material as much as you need.

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 11:45 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by riVeRraT, posted 09-08-2004 6:30 AM lfen has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019