Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,750 Year: 4,007/9,624 Month: 878/974 Week: 205/286 Day: 12/109 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PROOF against evolution
Unseul
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 562 (112103)
06-01-2004 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by TheNewGuy03
06-01-2004 2:59 PM


Re: a couple points if I may.
1. They've mutated (evolved) also, though we do have some ancient creatures still about that just did well (sharks + crocs).
2. DNA samples of you and your mother would show a 50% relationship, maybe a little up or down depending on mutation, but pretty close. To you and an unrelated person it would be less, you are in fact more closely related to your mother, wow it works. No two things are exactly the same because of the inadequecies in the replication system of DNA, small mutations occur.
3. Well it probably started just as self replicating molecules similar to crystals, then when one of them mutated enough it could have adapted to start using resources faster and so would replicate more. As far as possibly the first thing we could class as a cell well i imagine it worked by oxidising stuff like most things do (cept plants). Nothing has a purpose, it just replicates, the original cell was just trying (tho with no intent) to replicate.
4.Plants photosynthesize because this is the route that their little replicating chemicals have found allows them to replicate reliably. Just because plants die doesnt mean that they're suddenly obeying a law. Once again you're misrepresenting the second law, its been done many times.
5. There are many other sorts of record from humans such as cave paintings etc that are aged to be much older, if your talking geneologies etc then maybe the egyptions were first, what of it? Fossils are tested using a variety of methods, the dates and dating forum should easily clear up any problems you have on methods of dating the earth and just about anyhting else. It wasnt just some guy saying "yep this looks pretty old, id say a million years! that must mean this one is two million cos it looks older...."
6. Not necessarily, evolutionary atheists fit your description, youd need to ask Mike or someone similar on a theistic evolution point of view. But not the universe as we know it, that looks pretty chaotic to me, just following some basic rules, our plant tho seems to have been quite lucky.
7. Now this fits in nicely with the theory of evolution, plants start using this abundant resource of CO2 with the sunlight, and use it to create sugars etc with which they can help themselves replicate. As a side process they release oxygen, this means air breathing oxidisers can evolve (strangely enough this is the order that the dating systems says things came about too which is good for evolution.) Thats not even an impressive one, you wanna play hardball take a look into some of the impressive symbiotic relationships going on, its predicted 25% of all insects species has a bacteria symbiont called Wolbachia within it, now thats where the evolution of such adaptions can become interesting.
I've thought about all you have said, and still you put forward your viewpoints with no backup (though admittedly the last lot were more sorta opinions not needing fact). The second law of thermodynamics seems to be your favorite at the moment, anyone know a link to quickly stop this one?
Unseul

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....
Do unto others before they do unto you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-01-2004 2:59 PM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-01-2004 3:46 PM Unseul has replied
 Message 222 by NosyNed, posted 06-01-2004 4:01 PM Unseul has replied

Unseul
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 562 (112117)
06-01-2004 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by NosyNed
06-01-2004 4:01 PM


Re: relatedness
Yeah, i realised after posting that i'd screwed that one up more than a little. Didnt want to edit my post cos then it would look like im just changing it all to make it fit again.
I will try and reassess what i have said in my next reply.
Unseul

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....
Do unto others before they do unto you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by NosyNed, posted 06-01-2004 4:01 PM NosyNed has not replied

Unseul
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 562 (112124)
06-01-2004 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by TheNewGuy03
06-01-2004 3:46 PM


Re: a couple points if I may.
1. What from the beginning? that would take a long time, and quite simply i doubt anyone knows the entire evolutionary lineage of everything including every single mutation. Basically DNA replicates, as it replicates errors occur. These errors allow for new proteins to be produced, these proteins effect different things in different ways. You'd need to read a lot of literature to get the full whack of evolution and i dont think im obliged to supply you with the lot of it, talkorigins is always a good start though.
2. As i replied to Nosyned this was badly put. Very badly in fact. Sorry about that. Basically your dna is more closely related to your close relatives, then cousins etc, then broader family, then probably ethnic origin, then humanity, then primates etc etc. It all sorta works back from there until you get a few extremely well conserved stretches of DNA that are found in almost everyting, these are generally to do with DNA replication, if the replicator machinery doesnt work you dont grow, no matter what you are.
3. Basically your working back from what we have today, in which case it will work back to some sort of primordial prokaryotic (i would imagine) cell, and then to some sort of replicating molecules. Like you said, everything came from something (until you get to the first which is abiogensis, not relevant to topic, but that first doesnt have to be at all advanced)
4. An overall increase in entropy in a closed system, we can choose for that system to be the universe if you wish. However just because theres a little bit of supposed order here doesnt mean overall there's a decrease in entropy. Unfortunatly im not a physicist and cannot take you through the specifics. However The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability seems to cover it nicely. I know you can offer me a return website with aig or similar, but quite simply unless your upto doing the maths yourself i doubt this will satisfy you, but at least look over it.
5. We can measure radioactive decay (i believe most dating methods use this in some form) by getting a reading for how fast something decays and using knowledge of how much of such a substance would be present, we can then determine the age of an object. If a fossil was found that after repeated testing always dated to 6 billion, well then some thinking would have to be done i suspect.
6. Like i said, take it up with someone who believes, as far as i can tell its all based on whether you take Genesis to be literal or not.
7. You misunderstood, these insects did not come from Wolbachia, they have Wolbachia living inside their cells. It is a symbiosis, possibly mutualism, possibly parasitism its hard to tell. However deciding on how this could have evolved (the wolbachia would have entered a species of insect as some point after they were fully developed), as with many of the parasites etc is an interesting line of study, as it requires much more in depth thought than just hey the plants produce oxygen, and that just happens to be what we breath.
I have no desire to cancel you out, i hardly know you. My only real desire on any of these boards is to increase my own knowledge, be it through debate or just reading the posts.
Personally i have seen you made claims about the second law of dynamics and not back it up even with a reference to back up your position, there are several websites out there that agree with you, and put up the numbers to proove it, perhaps referencing one of these would be sufficient.
I'm actually an adult, so kid seems a little derogoratory, but thanks for the good wishes, you too.
Unseul

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....
Do unto others before they do unto you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-01-2004 3:46 PM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-01-2004 4:37 PM Unseul has replied

Unseul
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 562 (112130)
06-01-2004 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by TheNewGuy03
06-01-2004 4:37 PM


Re: a couple points if I may.
Thats cool, no probs with the kid thing then.
Being on the right side of things is jsut about everything these forums are about, people trying to confirm there positions through debate with likeminded and unlikeminded people. Can i recommend Richard Dawkins books (selfish gene and blind watchmaker are the ones i've covered will get round to the rest at some point), they really are superb and although didnt really confirm anything for me (i was already happy with evolution), certainly made things a lot easier to comprehend and work out.
Unseul
edit to just make sure it read corectly
This message has been edited by Unseul, 06-01-2004 03:42 PM

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....
Do unto others before they do unto you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-01-2004 4:37 PM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-01-2004 4:47 PM Unseul has replied

Unseul
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 562 (112141)
06-01-2004 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by TheNewGuy03
06-01-2004 4:47 PM


Re: a couple points if I may.
OK, the flood can be disputed using geological studies etc. The reason you will find very few people prooving against creation is because of its very nature. God did it, this means that no matter what is found god could still have done it that way, because he's god. It means its not truly falsifiable, and hence doesnt meet the requirements of science (doesnt mean its wrong, but means its not science). Almost everything we call science is theories, relativity, gravity etc, we can observe things definitly happening, such as apples falling, but to give a reason for it, that is the theory, we accept that we could be wrong (i believe it was said in another topic recently the only reason the laws are laws is because we were more arrogant back then). The whole point is that they can be adapted to fit the evidence (note this isnt the same as creation which is all encompassing, evolution theory gives foward one view, it can be proven wrong in which case a new theory would be needed).
I enjoy the spiritual discussion a lot, faith and belief forum is good for that, plenty of logical arguing etc . I can gain satisfaction out of many things, not all of them are true (i mean i gain satisfaction that i am extremely good looking and irresistible to women, theres a chance it could be false tho ). Personally i do not believe there is any purpose, just chance.
Unseul

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....
Do unto others before they do unto you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-01-2004 4:47 PM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-01-2004 5:08 PM Unseul 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