Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Makes No Sense


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
246 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 July 2010 - 08:46 AM

Is there evidence for this?  ;)

Or do hypothetical situations count as evidence nowdays? ;)

View Post


Sure, there's evidence for speciation comparable to the dachsunds-on-island analogy: the London Underground Mosquito, the Lake Victoria fishies etc.

#22 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 05 July 2010 - 09:17 AM

Sure, there's evidence for speciation comparable to the dachsunds-on-island analogy: the London Underground Mosquito, the Lake Victoria fishies etc.

View Post

Did I miss something? ;)
Have the London Underground Mosquitos grown new arms or legs, or something?
Have the Lake Victoria fish started walking on land, breathing air, or something?

OR, did they breed together, and now we have "FishQuitos"? ;) ;) :D
(Which, BTW, wouldn't be evolution anyway - just bizarre breeding.)

After all, aren't they still just mosquitos and fish? :)

Speciation, or better "sub-speciation", is not evolution. Just because certain scientists use the word evolution in describing what happened with these two examples, doesn't mean it has anything to do with the ToE. More often than not, probably always actually, you could substitute the words adapt, adapted, adaptation for evolve, evolved, evolution, respectively, and the reading would be just as accurate.

#23 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 July 2010 - 01:08 PM

After all, aren't they still just mosquitos and fish? ;)


Only because the general terms "mosquito" and "fish" correspond to the characteristics shared by individuals within many separate gene pools. If gene flow is not possible between groups then any change in one pool will not be replicated in the other and the differences compounded until eventually separate terms will be required to distinguish the groups.

More often than not, probably always actually, you could substitute the words adapt, adapted, adaptation for evolve, evolved, evolution, respectively, and the reading would be just as accurate.

View Post


You could but you would still be describing the same step in the evolution of a gene pool.

#24 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 05 July 2010 - 02:20 PM

Only because the general terms "mosquito" and "fish" correspond to the characteristics shared by individuals within many separate gene pools.  If gene flow is not possible between groups then any change in one pool will not be replicated in the other and the differences compounded until eventually separate terms will be required to distinguish the groups.

View Post

But they're still just mosquitos and fish, they didn't evolve into something different. Just because they might not be able to mate with other mosquitos doesn't mean they're not mosquitos! ;)

You could but you would still be describing the same step in the evolution of a gene pool.

I wouldn't describe it as the evolution of anything, I would just describe it as a group of [fill in with any creature] has adapted to a different environment.

That's why evolution doesn't make any sense, it doesn't explain anything. God's creation can and does adapt as needed, it is a wonder indeed.

#25 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 05 July 2010 - 03:03 PM

1. If evolution is true, why is man not evolving now?

View Post


We are. Compare the skulls of hunter-gatherer humans to agrarian humans and you’ll notice several differences, for example a reduction in jaw size and less robust bones.

2. Evolution says we evolve, so what are we ment to turn into physically next?

View Post


There is no pre-determined “next” because evolution is driven by environmental factors, not an intelligent force. We aren’t Pokemon.

3. The theory of evolution states we evolved from smaller things, evolutionists say we originally were tiny in size, as small as bread crumbs and even smaller pieces of bacteria. Imagine that, this is what evolutionists believe your ancestor was:

      -------------------------------> .

In case you don't see it, it's the dot (next to arrow). Evolutionists believe we started in lifeform smaller than this dot (Seriously, anyone who believes this should be locked up in a mental institution!). But my point is what came before the dot? So the dot just randomly appeared?

View Post


This question contains an ad hominem attack, which almost makes me want to skip over it entirely. I won’t, but in the future you might want to leave out unnecessary insults if you expect anyone to take your arguments seriously.

The “dot” is cell, and cells are still the primary building blocks of all life. The process of going from unicellular to multicellular life is not impossible, as I illustrated on another thread using sponges as my example. As for what came before the cell, the RNA world hypothesis is a popular one amongst biologists, although it's certainly not the only hypothesis out there. It suggests that before cells, “life” consisted of replicating molecules of RNA.


4. How does evolution explain the conscience?

View Post


Humans have always lived in groups, a social organization with several advantages. But in order for a group to function effectively, the individuals within it need to cooperate to a certain extent. A society in which everyone is violent, selfish, and untrustworthy will be detrimental to everyone in it. Therefore, it is essential for us to form social relationships that take into account the feelings of others.

#26 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 July 2010 - 03:28 PM

We are. Compare the skulls of hunter-gatherer humans to agrarian humans and you’ll notice several differences, for example a reduction in jaw size and less robust bones.
There is no pre-determined “next” because evolution is driven by environmental factors, not an intelligent force. We aren’t Pokemon.
This question contains an ad hominem attack, which almost makes me want to skip over it entirely. I won’t, but in the future you might want to leave out unnecessary insults if you expect anyone to take your arguments seriously.

The “dot” is cell, and cells are still the primary building blocks of all life. The process of going from unicellular to multicellular life is not impossible, as I illustrated on another thread using sponges as my example. As for what came before the cell, the RNA world hypothesis is a popular one amongst biologists, although it's certainly not the only hypothesis out there. It suggests that before cells, “life” consisted of replicating molecules of RNA.
Humans have always lived in groups, a social organization with several advantages. But in order for a group to function effectively, the individuals within it need to cooperate to a certain extent. A society in which everyone is violent, selfish, and untrustworthy will be detrimental to everyone in it. Therefore, it is essential for us to form social relationships that take into account the feelings of others.

View Post


He has already been warned and suspended.

#27 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 July 2010 - 05:25 PM

But they're still just mosquitos and fish, they didn't evolve into something different.  Just because they might not be able to mate with other mosquitos doesn't mean they're not mosquitos! ;)


They are still mosquitos and fish because such terms are not specific enough to distinguish based on small generation-to-generation changes. The severance of the gene pools is fundamental and explains why you do not appear to resemble your distant relative the mushroom.

I wouldn't describe it as the evolution of anything, I would just describe it as a group of [fill in with any creature] has adapted to a different environment.


If you believe groups of living things adapt over time you believe in evolution.

That's why evolution doesn't make any sense, it doesn't explain anything. 


It explains the diversity of Life on Earth from common ancestry.

God's creation can and does adapt as needed, it is a wonder indeed.

View Post


You can wonder all you like but a statistical preference toward the more adaptive reproducing is a tautological reality. Elaborate constructs such as creator deities, original sin and an inexplicable barrier preventing small changes accumulating into large ones have no basis in observation.

#28 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 05 July 2010 - 08:01 PM

They are still mosquitos and fish because such terms are not specific enough to distinguish based on small generation-to-generation changes.  The severance of the gene pools is fundamental and explains why you do not appear to resemble your distant relative the mushroom.

View Post

The severance of the gene pool does nothing more than isolate certain groups. There is no evidence whatsoever that even remotely suggests that any human being is a distant descendant of a mushroom. The evidence we do have shows clearly that humans have always been humans.

If you believe groups of living things adapt over time you believe in evolution.

Not at all. I believe that things can adapt if necessary, and time isn't much of a factor either. Observation has shown that adaptation can happen rather quickly, even over the span of about a decade.

It explains the diversity of Life on Earth from common ancestry.

The only thing all of creation has in common is the Designer of it.

You can wonder all you like but a statistical preference toward the more adaptive reproducing is a tautological reality.  Elaborate constructs such as creator deities, original sin and an inexplicable barrier preventing small changes accumulating into large ones have no basis in observation.

You misunderstood my use of the word "wonder", I thought it was obvious. But for your referrence, here is the definition that fits my use:
to be filled with admiration, amazement, or awe; marvel

Since you are allowing mathmatics into this conversation, let us consider the probabilities against the ToE; that random mutations, chance driven, and non-purposeful evolutionary happenings, even given the unfounded millions/billions of years of evolutionary time, could ever result in life as we know it.

It seems as if you adhere to a "survival of the fittest" understanding of the world, which is fine, you are welcome to believe in whatever you like, that is your God given priveledge. ;)

#29 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 July 2010 - 09:04 PM

There is no evidence whatsoever that even remotely suggests that any human being is a distant descendant of a mushroom.


Oh, you know about phylogeny as well as I do. When I see fungi on a rotting log I feel a deep sense of kinship.

I believe that things can adapt if necessary, and time isn't much of a factor either.  Observation has shown that adaptation can happen rather quickly, even over the span of about a decade.


This adaptation isn't a decision being made, it's more adaptive variants being favoured over less, the consequences of natural selection.

The only thing all of creation has in common is the Designer of it.


The designer made all organic life based on DNA, maybe said designer wants us to believe in common descent. Had the designer thrown in some non-DNA based life or some silicon based bacteria then creationism would have it so much easier.

You misunderstood my use of the word "wonder", I thought it was obvious.  But for your referrence, here is the definition that fits my use:
to be filled with admiration, amazement, or awe; marvel


I also interpreted your wonder as marvel - i.e. I wonder at [the beauty of] a starry sky.

Since you are allowing mathmatics into this conversation, let us consider the probabilities against the ToE; that random mutations, chance driven, and non-purposeful evolutionary happenings, even given the unfounded millions/billions of years of evolutionary time, could ever result in life as we know it.


The improbability of life on Earth is in its surviving the very early and vulnerable pre-cell era, but given a 100 billion galaxies each with a 100 billion stars... Once the cell was established a wide diversity of life was inevitable.

#30 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 July 2010 - 11:06 PM

Oh, you know about phylogeny as well as I do.  When I see fungi on a rotting log I feel a deep sense of kinship.
This adaptation isn't a decision being made, it's more adaptive variants being favoured over less, the consequences of natural selection.
The designer made all organic life based on DNA, maybe said designer wants us to believe in common descent.  Had the designer thrown in some non-DNA based life or some silicon based bacteria then creationism would have it so much easier.
I also interpreted your wonder as marvel - i.e. I wonder at [the beauty of] a starry sky.
The improbability of life on Earth is in its surviving the very early and vulnerable pre-cell era, but given a 100 billion galaxies each with a 100 billion stars... Once the cell was established a wide diversity of life was inevitable.

View Post


Sarcastic remarks to try and offset the other persons point won't win you any debates :D

Yes adaption is adaptive. However adaption is NOT evolution. It has been observed that adaption only changes within the kind of the organism, (pertaining to the different breeds of a species).

Even if God made silicon based life on Earth as well as Carbon based. Evolutionists would still say that was "how life evolved". Also it may be questioned, why would God create 2 different kinds of life?

However SCIENCE doesn't deal with hypotheticals, (unless its evolution ;) ), so I see no reason to delve into why there is only carbon based life on Earth.

Is there a SCIENTIFIC process or even remote possiblity of this "pre-cell" life? My Biology lecturers say that life is defined by the cell, the celluar processes of replication, differing gradient of chemicals to the outside, and energy use, etc...

Implying that there is no such thing as pre-cell life. This is what I have been taught at Uni, (which is based on Darwinian theory ;) , I'll be studying "evolution" this semester)....

So what I am getting taught in one semester directly contradicts what I'll be getting taught in the next. What a wonderful system the "mainstream" scientific community has set up ;)

#31 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 July 2010 - 11:11 PM

Sure, there's evidence for speciation comparable to the dachsunds-on-island analogy: the London Underground Mosquito, the Lake Victoria fishies etc.

View Post


Variation within a species does nothing to help evolution.

Fish = Fish = Fish = Fish = Fish = No Evolution
Mozzie = Mozzie = Mozzie = Mozzie = Mozzie = No Evolution

#32 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 July 2010 - 03:33 AM

Is there evidence for this?  ;)

Or do hypothetical situations count as evidence nowdays? ;)

View Post


To answer that question, you have to adopt the philosophy that "there are no absolutes", and "there is no such thing as truth". Then it fits quite nicely!

Remember; "science doesn't prove anything"... Anymore.

#33 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 06 July 2010 - 04:52 AM

1. If evolution is true, why is man not evolving now?

We are.

http://www.nytimes.c...tibet.html?_r=2


2. Evolution says we evolve, so what are we ment to turn into physically next?

Evolution says that organisms change to suit their environment. Apart from issues like the one mentioned above, we control the environment to suit us, so the chance of us evolving into something physically different before we go extinct is very low.

3. The theory of evolution states we evolved from smaller things, evolutionists say we originally were tiny in size, as small as bread crumbs and even smaller pieces of bacteria. Imagine that, this is what evolutionists believe your ancestor was:

-------------------------------> .

In case you don't see it, it's the dot (next to arrow). Evolutionists believe we started in lifeform smaller than this dot (Seriously, anyone who believes this should be locked up in a mental institution!). But my point is what came before the dot? So the dot just randomly appeared?

This is a complete misrepresentation. The dot didn’t just randomly appear. Evolution deals with things that evolve. The chemicals that make up life didn’t evolve, they changed according to chemical formulae. Ask a chemist, not an evolutionist.


4. How does evolution explain the conscience?

Very easily. You’ve obviously not researched the topic very far if you ask questions like this. For starters, read The Selfish Gene. That will be a great place for you to start understanding this issue.

#34 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 July 2010 - 05:21 AM

1. If evolution is true, why is man not evolving now?

We are. 

http://www.nytimes.c...tibet.html?_r=2


Changes within a kind still support creation. Did these people become non-human.

2. Evolution says we evolve, so what are we ment to turn into physically next?

Evolution says that organisms change to suit their environment.  Apart from issues like the one mentioned above, we control the environment to suit us, so the chance of us evolving into something physically different before we go extinct is very low.


Plankton change their environment, not themselves, to suit their needs. Which is the very opposite of evolution: http://www.nasa.gov/...nktoncloud.html

So how does the ability to change one's environment evolve? Is there an evolution tree for this? what is the step by step process?

3. The theory of evolution states we evolved from smaller things, evolutionists say we originally were tiny in size, as small as bread crumbs and even smaller pieces of bacteria. Imagine that, this is what evolutionists believe your ancestor was:

-------------------------------> .

In case you don't see it, it's the dot (next to arrow). Evolutionists believe we started in lifeform smaller than this dot (Seriously, anyone who believes this should be locked up in a mental institution!). But my point is what came before the dot? So the dot just randomly appeared?

This is a complete misrepresentation.  The dot didn’t just randomly appear.  Evolution deals with things that evolve.  The chemicals that make up life didn’t evolve, they changed according to chemical formulae.  Ask a chemist, not an evolutionist.


Separating the foundational problems of evolution so that they don't point directly to evolution does not mean they won't pose a constant problem for evolution.

Example: Can evolution happen without life? Has science made life from dead matter yet? Saying go ask a chemist just means you are in denial that you cannot prove life happens naturally, and therefore would prefer to ignore the problem so you don't have to face the reality of it.

4. How does evolution explain the conscience?

Very easily.  You’ve obviously not researched the topic very far if you ask questions like this.  For starters, read The Selfish Gene.  That will be a great place for you to start understanding this issue.

View Post


So genes think for us? I can hear it now: Your Honor, my client rapes little children because his genes make him do it. So he is innocent because this trait was passed to him which is not something he can control.

Why did we even evolve a brain if our genes think for us and make us do things?

Question: Is hate taught or a passed gene?
Is racism taught or a passed gene?
Is being a P*dophile a choice, or a passed gene?

Our head should be full of genes instead of brains because it seems to me we are more controlled by the genes then we are by our brains.

#35 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 06 July 2010 - 05:34 AM

Changes within a kind still support creation. Did these people become non-human.


Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. This has been demonstrated here. I never made any claim that these people were becoming non-human.

Evolution says that organisms change to suit their environment. Apart from issues like the one mentioned above, we control the environment to suit us, so the chance of us evolving into something physically different before we go extinct is very low.

Plankton change their environment, not themselves, to suit their needs. Which is the very opposite of evolution: http://www.nasa.gov/...nktoncloud.html

So how does the ability to change one's environment evolve? Is there an evolution tree for this? what is the step by step process?


If there is a selective advantage to altering ones environment then it will be selected for, just like any other trait.

Separating the foundational problems of evolution so that they don't point directly to evolution does not mean they won't pose a constant problem for evolution.

Example: Can evolution happen without life? Has science made life from dead matter yet? Saying go ask a chemist just means you are in denial that you cannot prove life happens naturally, and therefore would prefer to ignore the problem so you don't have to face the reality of it.


I like to work from the known to the unknown. There is evidence for abiogenesis but we don’t have the complete story. It isn’t my area of expertise, but from an evolutionary science point of view we can leave that as an unknown. Maybe from a philosophical position this is harder but it is like Galileo showing that the Earth goes round the Sun before understanding the origins of either.

So genes think for us? I can hear it now: Your Honor, my client rapes little children because his genes make him do it. So he is innocent because this trait was passed to him which is not something he can control.

Why did we even evolve a brain if our genes think for us and make us do things?

Question: Is hate taught or a passed gene?
Is racism taught or a passed gene?
Is being a p*dophile a choice, or a passed gene?

Our head should be full of genes instead of brains because it seems to me we are more controlled by the genes then we are by our brains.


Complete misrepresentation. It is not like that at all. Read the book that is recommended before making comments like that. They are below what I expect of you, Ikester.

The book The Selfish Gene discusses these points in detail and points out that the evolution of morality and our higher brain capacity shows that we are capable of immense Good and that we should never use our genes as an excuse because we have the cognitive ability to rise above our baser instincts.

#36 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 July 2010 - 06:29 AM

Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time.  This has been demonstrated here.  I never made any claim that these people were becoming non-human. 


If it's already written in the DNA code, then it's not evolution. Can they show where new code was written so that this adaptation could take place?

Evolution says that organisms change to suit their environment.  Apart from issues like the one mentioned above, we control the environment to suit us, so the chance of us evolving into something physically different before we go extinct is very low. If there is a selective advantage to altering ones environment then it will be selected for, just like any other trait.


Nice try, and nice dodge. You still did not explain how the biological changes in the life form would know how to change in order to change it's environment. Clouds are no biologically connected to the plankton, Now how would the plankton know how to biologically change to make clouds so it could survive? Trying to make it sound logical, while leaving out the biology of it only shows you have "zero" explanation for this.

I like to work from the known to the unknown.  There is evidence for abiogenesis but we don’t have the complete story.  It isn’t my area of expertise, but from an evolutionary science point of view we can leave that as an unknown.  Maybe from a philosophical position this is harder but it is like Galileo showing that the Earth goes round the Sun before understanding the origins of either.


But abiogenesis is treated, in every text book I have read, as the complete story. Can you show me a school text book that makes the reference to abiogenesis as being a hypothesis? It's more of an implied fact than anything else.

Complete misrepresentation.  It is not like that at all.  Read the book that is recommended before making comments like that.  They are below what I expect of you, Ikester.

The book The Selfish Gene discusses these points in detail and points out that the evolution of morality and our higher brain capacity shows that we are capable of immense Good and that we should never use our genes as an excuse because we have the cognitive ability to rise above our baser instincts.

View Post


So what you are saying here is that people who claim to be g*y because of the g*y gene really don't have a claim?

#37 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 July 2010 - 06:43 AM

1. If evolution is true, why is man not evolving now?

We are. 

View Post


Again, keeping in mind that the premise of this OP is directly addressing macro-evolution, you statement is incorrect, because it is basing its opinion of macro on speculation alone.

As you read the opinion you linked to, you soon realize that they provide absolutely NO empirical evidence for macro, just speculation via Argumentum ad Futuris in that they are praying “future evidence will support” their speculations. You can replace the word “adaptation” for their insertion of “evolution”, and paint a more accurate picture of what has happen.

2. Evolution says we evolve, so what are we ment to turn into physically next?

Evolution says that organisms change to suit their environment.  Apart from issues like the one mentioned above, we control the environment to suit us, so the chance of us evolving into something physically different before we go extinct is very low.

View Post

“Adaptation” is the catalyst for our acclamation to our environs. But, when evolutionists insert the word “evolution” into the mix, they can then infer macro-evolution (which, of course there is no empirical evidence for) via micro-evolution (the word they replace “adaptation” with) via their Argumentum ad Futuris.

3. The theory of evolution states we evolved from smaller things, evolutionists say we originally were tiny in size, as small as bread crumbs and even smaller pieces of bacteria. Imagine that, this is what evolutionists believe your ancestor was:

-------------------------------> .

In case you don't see it, it's the dot (next to arrow). Evolutionists believe we started in lifeform smaller than this dot (Seriously, anyone who believes this should be locked up in a mental institution!). But my point is what came before the dot? So the dot just randomly appeared?

This is a complete misrepresentation.  The dot didn’t just randomly appear.  Evolution deals with things that evolve.  The chemicals that make up life didn’t evolve, they changed according to chemical formulae.  Ask a chemist, not an evolutionist.

View Post


Not a misrepresentation at all, it just clarifies the conundrum evolutionists have painted themselves into. If evolution deals with things that evolve, then what did evolution evolve from? Even chemists have absolutely no idea, and therefore must presuppose the answers; therefore rendering macro-evolution nothing more than a hypothesis. And when defended dogmatically (which most likely will happen right after this post) becomes religion-like in stature.


4. How does evolution explain the conscience?

Very easily.  You’ve obviously not researched the topic very far if you ask questions like this.  For starters, read The Selfish Gene.  That will be a great place for you to start understanding this issue.

View Post


This is not an answer, but more of another presupposed hypothesis. The Selfish Gene is more presupposed ideas from the evolutionary religious writings of Richard Dawkins (the inventor of the “meme” evolution religion). And is just furthering the veneer theory as coined by Frans de Waal and goes all the way back to Thomas Henry Huxley.

As I pointed out earlier; evolution, in no way, explains the conscience.

#38 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 06 July 2010 - 06:54 AM

If it's already written in the DNA code, then it's not evolution. Can they show where new code was written so that this adaptation could take place?


That’s actually incorrect. Evolution is not necessarily based on new code. These Tibetans have evolved by becoming better adapted to living where they do.

Of course, lactose intolerance is something that is likely to have occurred through a new allele, but that is only speculation on my part based on my understanding of how lactose is dealt with in mammals.


Nice try, and nice dodge. You still did not explain how the biological changes in the life form would know how to change in order to change it's environment. Clouds are no biologically connected to the plankton, Now how would the plankton know how to biologically change to make clouds so it could survive? Trying to make it sound logical, while leaving out the biology of it only shows you have "zero" explanation for this.


I’ve not read the report in detail, nor have I looked at the research behind the report (and I doubt that you have attempted that too) but in general terms, Plankton don’t have to ‘know’ how to biologically change to make clouds. If there is some variety in the amount of DMS forming from the plankton from 0% to 5% for example, because 5% dust produced is better than a completely clear sky, especially if DMS absorbs UV then there will be selection pressure for the 5% varieties. In other words, there will be selection pressure for an increased DMS production. A side product of this is the formation of clouds, but it is not necessary for the plankton to know the ultimate effect.

It might not be that DMS absorbs UV but it will be a necessary prediction of evolution that the production of DMSP or DMS has a beneficial advantage for the organism.

But abiogenesis is treated, in every text book I have read, as the complete story. Can you show me a school text book that makes the reference to abiogenesis as being a hypothesis? It's more of an implied fact than anything else.


I can’t comment on how text books in the USA are written. My main one here in the UK (at ‘A’ level, which is the highest grade before college) talks about the detail of what we know and what we are yet to know.

So what you are saying here is that people who claim to be g*y because of the g*y gene really don't have a claim?

View Post


No. I’m saying that the issue is more complicated than just ‘if your genes say so, you have to’ which was your original point. If you haven’t read the Selfish Gene then you won’t follow the argument and it is hard to convey the depth of the argument in a few lines but basically what we see as altruism in the animal kingdom is in actual fact a form of selfishness when looked at deeper. Altruism has evolved because there is a need for it in survival of the genes.

#39 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:43 AM

That’s actually incorrect.  Evolution is not necessarily based on new code.  These Tibetans have evolved by becoming better adapted to living where they do.


So changes are not based on DNA? Interesting. So what ever is needed it just poofs itself and the DNA has nothing to do with it?

Of course, lactose intolerance is something that is likely to have occurred through a new allele, but that is only speculation on my part based on my understanding of how lactose is dealt with in mammals.


I don't know about that.

I’ve not read the report in detail, nor have I looked at the research behind the report (and I doubt that you have attempted that too) but in general terms, Plankton don’t have to ‘know’ how to biologically change to make clouds.  If there is some variety in the amount of DMS forming from the plankton from 0% to 5% for example, because 5% dust produced is better than a completely clear sky, especially if DMS absorbs UV  then there will be selection pressure for the 5% varieties.  In other words, there will be selection pressure for an increased DMS production.  A side product of this is the formation of clouds, but it is not necessary for the plankton to know the ultimate effect.


Then you would have to explain the process of the evolution since the change is not adapting to the environment. Because claiming that this is adapting is like saying a farmer can make it rain because that is what he needs to make his plants grow and his survival.

It might not be that DMS absorbs UV but it will be a necessary prediction of evolution that the production of DMSP or DMS has a beneficial advantage for the organism. I can’t comment on how text books in the USA are written.  My main one here in the UK (at ‘A’ level, which is the highest grade before college) talks about the detail of what we know and what we are yet to know.


Heat from a to strong sun, making a life form produce a chemical that makes clouds is no little feat as you are trying to make it out to be. Also plankton is considered bottom of the food chain. And we are at the top. Yet a ability that would be very beneficial to us is given to it?

No.  I’m saying that the issue is more complicated than just ‘if your genes say so, you have to’ which was your original point.  If you haven’t read the Selfish Gene then you won’t follow the argument and it is hard to convey the depth of the argument in a few lines but basically what we see as altruism in the animal kingdom is in actual fact a form of selfishness when looked at deeper.  Altruism has evolved because there is a need for it in survival of the genes.

View Post


This is only speculation at best.

#40 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:51 AM

Variation within a species does nothing to help evolution.

Fish = Fish = Fish = Fish = Fish = No Evolution
Mozzie = Mozzie = Mozzie = Mozzie = Mozzie = No Evolution

View Post


Only because the general terms "mosquito" and "fish" correspond to the characteristics shared by individuals within many separate gene pools. If gene flow is not possible between groups then any change in one pool will not be replicated in the other and the differences compounded until eventually separate terms will be required to distinguish the groups.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users