Jump to content


The Exact Place And Size Of Our Sun And Moon.


  • Please log in to reply
150 replies to this topic

#141 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 July 2005 - 10:41 AM

That is not true and that is not what biologists say. It doesn't have to genes that cause the alleged shortfall.

IF the organism with the gene shortfall reproduce at all that means the genes will survive. That also means that most likely a mix will take place- an offspring from the alleged shortfall ancestry will breed with one from the bountiful gene pool.

View Post

Oh my, no. Population genetics not your strong suit obviously.

Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium states that gene frequencies and genotype ratios in a randomly-breeding population remain constant from generation to generation. There are five circumstances under which the Hardy-Weinberg law may fail:

mutation
gene flow
genetic drift
nonrandom mating
natural selection

#142 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 13 July 2005 - 12:05 PM

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 13 2005, 10:17 AM)
That is not true and that is not what biologists say. It doesn't have to genes that cause the alleged shortfall.

IF the organism with the gene shortfall reproduce at all that means the genes will survive. That also means that most likely a mix will take place- an offspring from the alleged shortfall ancestry will breed with one from the bountiful gene pool.



Cal:
Oh my, no. Population genetics not your strong suit obviously.


Substantiating your claims is not your strong suit, obviously.


Cal:
Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium states that gene frequencies and genotype ratios in a randomly-breeding population remain constant from generation to generation.


I wasn't talking about H-W equilibrium. I was talking about the fact that natural selection only "works" on living organisms. That fact has been substantiated by Dobzhansky and Wikipedia. If you need more references I will provide those also but that will just further expose your desperation.

#143 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 July 2005 - 12:53 PM

I wasn't talking about H-W equilibrium.

View Post

No, you were responding to this:

"It isn't necessary that an organism die in order for its genes to be eliminated by selection..."

With this:

"That is not true and that is not what biologists say..."

You weren't talking about Hardy-Weinberg because it represents a rigorously mathematical refutation of your mistaken view, and, apparently, because you did not realize that it is what biologists say about allele frequencies.


I was talking about the fact that natural selection only "works" on living organisms. That fact has been substantiated by Dobzhansky and Wikipedia. If you need more references I will provide those also...

More mined quotes you mean? Spare me. You still don't seem to appreciate that what I'm interested in is seeing you argue your case. Why could not natural selection (or, if you prefer, something analogous to it) operate on prebiotic replicators? (Hint: "because so-and-so said so" is not an argument).

#144 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 13 July 2005 - 01:09 PM

"Can't you tell? We're discussing the arrangement of planets in our solar system."

Apparently.


"That's because evolutionary theory offers only to explain how one existing form changes into another, and does not include any explanation for the origin of life (nor for the origin of the universe, btw)."

Well, it doesn't offer an explanation for much of anything I don't think. It fails to explain how an existing form changes to another, because they don't. If they did, where are the transitional forms? HOW WOULD A TRANSITIONAL FORM SURVIVE? is another big question. You are right about the explanation of the origin of life, which is it's biggest problem. Many evolutionists choose to accept that living organisms can advance on their own, but they don't even seem to wonder how the living organism got there in the first place, which is very obvious to me.

#145 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 July 2005 - 01:29 PM

We need to keep thread on subject please. I will start deleting stray threads that try and off throw the subject.

If anyone would like to start a branch off subject from this one, by starting a new thread, your welcome to do that.

#146 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 July 2005 - 02:14 PM

chance:
The example I gave was a virus, are you stating that a virus can’t evolve?


You never specified a virus. And there isn't any evidence that demonstrates a virus can evolve into anything but a virus.


This is what I said

This is a false representation of evolution WRT a single cell organisms. The evolutionary process would have started with far simpler components, not just jumped straight to a cell. In addition the factors to create life are still not known. What the author has done is a post hoc probability of current life starting from scratch. One can easily reduce the odds if one is to use a virus in place of a single cell.

This is a probability style question so if you want to debate the mechanics of the evolutionary process, I suggest you start a different topic stating your case.


chance:
So, conflicting definitions in a dictionary are a form of proof


Nope. They are not conflicting. The definitions demonstrate it is impossible for natural processes to account for the origin of nature.

Show me how you can use a dictionary as proof.

The only way around that fact is to re-define the words to suit your needs. Whining about it isn't going to do it.

As a side note, do you think any given dictionary is authoritive, can the meanings change? If so how will that be reflected in your argument?


What is even more funny is that neither Cal nor chance can support their own (ie evolutionists) claim that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population of single-celled organisms.

Well here is your opportunity to prove it, start a new topic and we shall see.

#147 Joshua

Joshua

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Planet Earth

Posted 17 September 2005 - 07:28 AM

What if the angular size of the moon relative to the angular size of the sun was a ratio of exactly 2.0, or 0.5 or 3.14159? How many different kinds of events would we interpret as 'unusual'?Suppose the moons orbit didn't wobble so an ecclipse was seen every month? Suppose the moon's orbit allowed the shadow of the earth to cast an ideally sized shadow on the moon during lunar ecclipses?


Data suggests that the Universe is finely tuned

To quote : The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter [across] on the other side.

In other words, any variation in any of the parameters, and life would not exist. Of course we can suggest alternate scenarios but in the case of cosmology we are dealing with what we can observe. Put simply, any other variation of the universal parameters then life and the universe would cease to exist.

#148 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 September 2005 - 02:01 PM

Data suggests that the Universe is finely tuned

To quote : The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter [across] on the other side.

In other words, any variation in any of the parameters, and life would not exist. Of course we can suggest alternate scenarios but in the case of cosmology we are dealing with what we can observe. Put simply, any other variation of the universal parameters then life and the universe would cease to exist.

View Post


There is little argument here, because at it core there is no science only a post-hoc argument, one might equally argue the odds of yourself being born.

Consider evolution and what it proposes, i.e. that life adapts to it’s environment, so no matter what configuration of world (provided that the key elements, warm, wet, and stable) life will evolve to that configuration, and give the appearance of “exactly fitting the environment”. If we were Neanderthals, and were postulating our existence several thousands of years ago, we might be arguing and giving thanks, that the temperature was not warmer.

#149 Joshua

Joshua

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Planet Earth

Posted 19 September 2005 - 06:09 AM

There is little argument here, because at it core there is no science only a post-hoc argument, one might equally argue the odds of yourself being born.

Consider evolution and what it proposes, i.e. that life adapts to it’s environment, so no matter what configuration of world (provided that the key elements, warm, wet, and stable) life will evolve to that configuration, and give the appearance of “exactly fitting the environment”.  If we were Neanderthals, and were postulating our existence several thousands of years ago, we might be arguing and giving thanks, that the temperature was not warmer.

View Post


Modern theory of evolution is a fairytale. Two mechanics responsible for the sustenance and creation of life. Mathematics refutes the current mechanism known as Random Mutation and as far as NS goes, well it’s not a universal force for starters. (Explanation available on request).

You have the ability to adapt. Where does this ability stem from ? Life cannot exist unless the configurations were correct in the first place. Furthermore, could you tell me where in the timeline of life, the theory of evolution was instigated ? At the first cell ? The Big Bang ? Abiogenesis ?

PS : Adaptation and Evolution are very different things ;)

#150 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 19 September 2005 - 07:19 AM

chance:
Consider evolution and what it proposes, i.e. that life adapts to it’s environment, so no matter what configuration of world (provided that the key elements, warm, wet, and stable) life will evolve to that configuration, and give the appearance of “exactly fitting the environment”.


If that were all evolution proposed we wouldn't be having this debate.

But perhaps evolution shouldn't be debated. Rather what evolutionists are doing with the theory and all its tangents is the real issue....


Another thread for that

#151 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 September 2005 - 01:53 PM

Modern theory of evolution is a fairytale.


IMO a critical examination of the evidence and the objections to evolution will prove othetrwise, indeed that is what this forum examines.


Two mechanics responsible for the sustenance and creation of life. Mathematics refutes the current mechanism known as Random Mutation and as far as NS goes, well it’s not a universal force for starters. (Explanation available on request).


I presume you mean two mechanisms. I have seen some of the refutations of which you speak, and when examined in detail are full of bad assumptions, yet to see one that holds up to critical analysis. But if you feel there is a new argument by all means lets discuss and analysis the calculation/assumptions.

You have the ability to adapt. Where does this ability stem from ? Life cannot exist unless the configurations were correct in the first place.


Adaptation by an individual is limited to whatever starting configuration it was born with, e.g. a certain tolerance to hot and cold, within those limits the individual can function, and outside the limits it will die. This ability is determined by it’s DNA. Adaptation of a species to hot and cold, is determined by the environment <insert standard evolution model>, this processes is determined by the combination of DNA.

As you say life cannot exist if the configurations were not correct, but just how correct do they have to be, and how fast can a species reproduce determines who will adapt. E.g. if the natural temperature fluctuations were say 10 deg C at night and 25 in the day, then a great deal of life could withstand this, change the fluctuation too quickly to –15 to +5 and I would expect a large amount of extinction. If this new condition remained, life would bounce back somewhat.

Furthermore, could you tell me where in the timeline of life, the theory of evolution was instigated ? At the first cell ? The Big Bang ? Abiogenesis ?


Biological evolution starts after abiogenesis. One should note that the word evolution can be used in different contexts so it’s quite possible to talk about stellar evolution. Combining this into a time line would give something like this:

Big bang – formation of universe – formation of solar system – cooling of the earth – chemical reactions – replicating molecules (abiogenesis) (evolution starts) - simple life (as we recognise it now) – complex life.

PS : Adaptation and Evolution are very different things

Well that’s my take from the POV of evolution. Do you agree or disagree with that interpretation, re adaptation/evolution?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users