Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Give your one best shot - against evolution
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 16 of 224 (6558)
03-11-2002 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by KingPenguin
03-10-2002 11:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
the fact that humans havent speciated and arent beginning to. only natural selection and choice in breeding have affected the way our different cultures appear.

The ToE does not require all species to speciate.
OTOH, we are primates, and humans and other primates evolved from a common ancestor.
We have speciated, just in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by KingPenguin, posted 03-10-2002 11:30 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 224 (6559)
03-11-2002 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by KingPenguin
03-11-2002 12:10 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
[b] i havent heard that mermaids have been discovered.[/QUOTE]
So, are you saying that the ToE predicts that humans will branch off into a different "mermaid" species?
If you think this, you have a very faulty understanding of the ToE.
[QUOTE]your last question has that circular problem in that you havent substantied enough evidence to prove beyond a doubt that we will.
[/b]
Nothing in science is proven at all.
Also, you have made the claim that because humans haven't speciated, and are not showing any signs that we are (according to you, at least), and then seem to imply that this indicated that speciation in humans could never happen.
Why not?
Also, what about observed speciation in other species? If you accept that microevolution occurrs in humans, just like other animals, what is the barrier which prevents speciation from happening?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by KingPenguin, posted 03-11-2002 12:10 AM KingPenguin has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 38 of 224 (6671)
03-12-2002 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by wj
03-12-2002 5:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by wj:
Jet, convince me that it is going to be worth my while researching the range of quotes that you have provided. Prove that you are going to recognise when a quote has been taken out of context. Prove that you will recognise when a quote is shown to be inconsistent with the person's published works then there is a valid question of accuracy of the quotation. Prove that you will accept that a generalised statement on evolution from the first half of the 20th century is not an accurate reflection on the current state of knowledge and thinking on evolution.
If you can do this with your own words then I might make the effort to address your cut-n-paste piece.

Don't hold your breath.
He did this in the Yahoo Club. Lots of huge cut n paste messages and no replies when he was shown to be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by wj, posted 03-12-2002 5:28 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by joz, posted 03-12-2002 9:39 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 55 of 224 (6934)
03-15-2002 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Jet
03-15-2002 3:19 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by quicksink:
.................maybe I'm an evil scientific drone.
Though what you truly are remains an unknown, you are definitely not what, or who, you portray yourself to be. You offer nothing other than the most common and typical pre-teen drivel.
[/b][/QUOTE]
What kind of 12 year olds do you know who can write like that, Jet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Jet, posted 03-15-2002 3:19 PM Jet has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 224 (6935)
03-15-2002 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by quicksink
03-14-2002 6:09 AM


quote:
Perhaps you are digging hard to find those indisputable records of Schrafinator's past criminal record.
Well, I did get a speeding ticket about 12 years ago...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 6:09 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-15-2002 7:15 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 84 of 224 (7705)
03-24-2002 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Mister Pamboli
03-15-2002 7:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Well, I did get a speeding ticket about 12 years ago...
Around the time quicksink was born, eh? Is there something we should know?

LOL!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-15-2002 7:15 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 85 of 224 (7706)
03-24-2002 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Mister Pamboli
03-22-2002 4:38 PM


quote:
I can't even believe one DNA-mutation ever took place that was beneficial to survival, let alone the billions required.
I can drink cows milk thanks to my lactose tolerance - a mutation my chinese colleague Zhao does not share. Being able to drink milk and eat milk products enabled pastoralism to flourish in communities which otherwise would have been severely disadvantaged to survive.
I never grew any lower wisdom teeth, and I consider that quite an advantageous mutation.
Let's also remember that there is a mutation that gives people either partial resistance or total immunity to HIV, depending upon if they got a single or double copy of the mutation. I would say that this would be considered a beneficial mutation, and it EXACTLY what is predicted by Evolutionary Biology. Because of massive genetic diversity in our population, random mutations which convey an advantage when the environment changes (i.e a virulent new disease agent has emerged) are selected by the environment. Read more about it here:
http://www.sciam.com/0997issue/0997obrien.html
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-22-2002 4:38 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 144 of 224 (12941)
07-07-2002 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Jonathan
06-29-2002 12:55 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:
[b]I was waiting in the doctors office one day in the exam room looking at cut away diagrams of the human body. Seeing how extreamly complex the design is and how well it works is what convinced me. I just cant possibly imagine that all of this has happened totally by chance.[/QUOTE]
That's good, because it didn't.
Evolution doesn't happen "totally by chance". Mutation is random, but natural selection is the exact opposite of chance.
quote:
It just works to well to have hapened on its own with no outside help.
First, there is a lot about the human body that is rather far from optimal.
Our lower backs are and knees are poorly constructed for vertical locomotion, which is why millions of people have terrible back pain and knee injuries.
We have a sharp ridge of bone on the insides of our skulls. Not good if you ever hit your head just so.
We have a crossover food/windpipe construction which makes us extremely susceptable to inhaling food and drink into our lungs, and to outright cutting off our air and killing us. (The evolutionary advantage to being able to produce complex speech was greater than the disadvantage of greatly increased chance of choking to death.)
Etc.
quote:
A million engineers working a million years couldnt even come close to designing somthing as well designed as the human body.
What about many millions of years and natural selection to produce something as adequately adapted, yet far from perfect as the human body?
quote:
And evolutionists expect us to beleive that it created itself?
Um, no. See this link for lots of what Biology has to say about evolution and chance:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html
[QUOTE]It is harder to beleive that abiogenesis and evolution occured than it is to beleive that there is a god that has created us.
Just my opinion.[/b]
First, why do you bring up Abiogenesis in a discussion of human anatomy?
Second, whether or not something is hard or easy for you to believe has little bearing on if it is true.
Third, what you don't know about Biology is a lot. Go here and read it all:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Jonathan, posted 06-29-2002 12:55 AM Jonathan has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 145 of 224 (12942)
07-07-2002 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Philip
06-29-2002 3:09 AM


Well, it seems that all you are left with is your emotional discomfort with the thought that humans evolved, rather than any evidence either for the notion that Godidt or against Biology.
Argument from Personal Incredulity/It-Makes-Me-Feel-Less-Special.
Funny, I think it is utterly amazing and wonderful that I am "evolved slime". What could be more humbling and awe-inspiring than that?
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Philip, posted 06-29-2002 3:09 AM Philip has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 146 of 224 (12943)
07-07-2002 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Fred Williams
07-05-2002 12:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
No, its healthy man in healthy envirnoment, to less healthy man in less healthy environment. Evolution at its finest!
I have a question for you. If you were told this moment that you were going to be transferred to a malaria-infected area, would you want the specific amino acid in your beta globin switched on one of your chromosomes to the sickle-cell variety?

If I was a population which "wanted" to survive to reproduce, yes.
It doesn't matter what an individual in a population "wants"; it matters what makes the survival of the species possible.
SCA confers resistance to malaria long enough so that individuals can reproduce.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Fred Williams, posted 07-05-2002 12:51 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 161 of 224 (13066)
07-08-2002 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by John
07-08-2002 10:41 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
A staggering number of brain cells are redundant as well but you don't want to go picking out the extras. Maybe they are back-up systems, spare parts, or maybe we just don't what they do. This fact does not negate neurology.

You are correct about back up systems in the brain. This is why people often recover lost cognitive abilities after brain trauma such as strokes. The brain creates new ways to get things done.
To address PB's claim...
Evolution predicts redundancy in genetic variation; it is no surprise to any Biologist or evolutionist that genetic redundancy exists.
I am not sure why you think this is a point against the ToE when it is actually predicted by the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by John, posted 07-08-2002 10:41 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by peter borger, posted 07-09-2002 11:36 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 191 of 224 (13270)
07-10-2002 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by peter borger
07-09-2002 11:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Apparently you are not up-to-date with molecular biology. I recommend you to do a literature search on this topic. Read them carefully, than we may discuss this topic. In the meantime I will finish off with NDT.
Peter

I did a google search; "genetic redundancy evolution prediction" It returned 2,880 hits. Some good ones are are linked below.
Remember, my claim is that genetic redundancy is a prediction of the ToE, not a refutation of it, as you claim it is.
By providing references to current Biology research which discusses genetic redundancy as a proof of Evolution, I should think my claim is well supported.
What YOU have to do is the same thing. Provide research and references which supports your claim that genetic redundancy is not, in fact, a prediction of Evolutionary theory.
http://www.wcci2002.org/cec/acceptedspecial.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/schuster97sequence.html
www.cs.sunysb.edu/~skiena/talks/talk-bio.pdf
Also found this paper:
Nowak, M. A., Boerlijst, M. C., Cooke, J. and Smith, J. M. Evolution of genetic redundancy. Nature 388:167-171 (1997).
I could go on and on, but I think this is enough.
I look forward to the links and evidence from the professional literature that you provide which reveals that genetic redundancy is a big surprise and redundancy to the professional Biology community.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by peter borger, posted 07-09-2002 11:36 PM peter borger 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