Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Dude

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 02/23/1966

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    New Age
  • What is your Worldview?
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
  1. Dude

    Life Only Comes From Life

    Let me skip to the chase without addressing all of your points. The set I'm thinking of is the set of "caused" items (for lack of a better word). The separate set is un-caused items. As I have re-read a bit of the previous thread, I can see that if you refute the idea of the use of the word "everything" (as it includes both sets); then you are right. Insofar as un-caused items are not actually caused and you rightfully can object to them being included as you did in your post. I think though that it is a bit of useless nitpicking on your part to do that. Where will it help us arrive at an answer to the idea that abiogenesis has more evidential support than special creation, the idea of the thread. I don't really want to address your other good point as at their core none of it capable of being shown or resolved, it's all more for the philosophy section whereas I would rather stay in the science section. If you want me to however, I still can clarify any of my previous points.
  2. Dude

    Life Only Comes From Life

    Hi jason78, Although I've not read the latest posts to this thread (and soon will) I find that I cannot ignore your post that I have more or less just fallen upon. What in the world are you stating here? You have said that the prime cause is not separate from the infinite regress. But by definition it is. Prime cause means prime as in "first," as in it is the start or beginning or causeless portion of the chain of regress. It is a bit silly for you to say that the things apart from the set are actually in the set and therefore have the properties of the set. Unless I am somehow misunderstanding your plain words I just don't get how you can say that. I wanted to respond to you as one atheist to another so that you might actually look into what it is have have stated above and not just categorically deny anyone else's (theist) rebuttal to your post. I don't want you to sound like an idiot when you fight for your (and my) cause.
  3. Here is a WIKIpedia link to what I mean with emergence. WIKI:EMERGENCE I didn't find any tree of life references in the WIKI article; but I think the theory of emergence applies to the tendencies toward complexity evident in the TOL that you have already referred to in a previous post. To be honest, I don't know much about it and so will only refer you to whatever you might find elsewhere, if you're interested at all.
  4. I guess you do not see that complexity arises? The science of emergence tries to make sense out of that phenomena.
  5. Under those conditions life would have never started (in a natural way). Since I see that life has started (in a natural way), I must conclude that your given scenario has not been fully realized on a global and comprehensive scale. In fact there would be no reason for your scenario under natural conditions not to apply to the entire universe. As far as your supernatural argument goes, it is pointless for me to try and refute it as nothing in that realm can be accepted but upon faith.
  6. It seems you have made the unfortunate plight of a population(s), on its way to extinction stand for the entire future of life on earth. In a way I guess you mean it was always the condition of life on earth. Doesn't really correlate to the information about life we have been able to discover.
  7. Yes you have it right; except for the phrase "does not care" which uses conscious decision making. I don't imply that evolutionary/life processes are making conscious decisions, envisioning plans. Some men are perhaps the only exception to other life on earth in this regard. The kind of diversity I mean is genetic variation among the genomes of a gene pool. In a harsh and changing world where the future cannot be reliably predicted, it is better to have more genetic variation in a population, but only up until a point where the diversity itself becomes a hindrance or otherwise not favored. Which direction do you mean and what is a "TOL?"
  8. What are the consequences of your statement? I don't think I disagree with the statement. But I still do not know where you are going with that idea. I did review the video. Mr. Minnich I'm afraid makes the exact argument you have made and I have then rephrased before in my other post. You guys seem to think that an organism should perish under all but one condition. After all the organism was compromised, it should not live after such an event. And yet some of the organisms refuse to succumb.
  9. Hello, To arrive at that conclusion, it must first be supposed that less genomic/genetic diversity, is more advantageous than more genomic/genetic diversity within the entire gene pool. In a changing world with an uncertain future (like ours) is it really true that less diversity is actually better than more? Life just wants to live. It doesn't actually consider the direction it should be taking on some sort of conceived grand scale, or why one path of development/evolution should be preferred. Why should life improve itself toward an end, a goal of some type, a target to be achieved? Life just wants to live, keep on living and then reproduce.
  10. For whatever costs fitness incurs, unfitness (lack of fitness) incurs more costs. Such is the definition of fitness. It is the low cost alternative, by definition. You are implying that a drug resistant strain should have actually died right there at the start of an antibiotic therapy given to a patient, rather than live on using existing attributes. The microbes should die immediately, for no other reason than, should a microbe stay alive it would eventually encounter wild type strains that they would not compete and reproduce as well against. Is my assessment of your argument correct?
  11. Your review of the scenario leads you to the conclusion that: "In the grand scheme I see a loss of fitness." What you show in your post, is how a mutation allows survival in a hostile environment. You see this as a loss of fitness. I can't follow that logic. How is it that you can call surviving and reproducing a loss in fitness? Surviving and reproducing where others cannot, or cannot as successfully, is in fact the essence of fitness. Why call a fit organism an unfit one? You also show in your post, that a quarter of the offspring will have full blown sickle cell disease. It seems to me you're not noticing that another quarter of the offspring will be fully unprotected against a dangerous parasite. So, your scenario really shows fully half of the offspring are delivered into certain death. It's not a quarter lost, it is half. But the other half lives. That such a high price is paid for survival in a certain environment, instead of a lower price, you have labeled a loss of fitness. Maybe people don't really need to live at all in malaria stricken areas, as it is simply too expensive.
  12. For the 10th time, heterozygous carriers' genes produce perfectly good hemoglobin. Zygosity is just not that difficult to understand. If you want me to explain it I will, but you would be better to read it from a better source. So you get to arbitrarily assign these values??? Must be nice to possess such power. 29446[/snapback] The heterozygous condition confers added malaria resistance. This is a separate phenotype from the homozygous conditions. This malaria resistant phenotype is due to the inherent underlying differences among the genotypes. Co-dominance of the two alleles, or some form of incomplete dominance, is at play here. With as much as you have already said above in all of your posts you should be able to see that far already, just look into it.
  13. Shouldn't you stay closer to the topic of the thread? Prof. Lenski et al will at some point in the future (hopefully soon) publish the exact sequences of the genomes of these E. coli. Then you too will be able to see for yourself the exact causes for this new ability to metabolize citrate (under the given lab conditions). When you see the mutations in the genome and the subsequent effects they produce, what will you, scott and others say then?
  14. Dude

    Greetings Everyone

    How can I choose 'no affiliation' when I'm affiliated with the Catholics? Choosing among the options on the pull down menu is something to be chosen by the user. I appreciate your input and I even can see your point of view on the matter (i.e. showing the other forum members your stance on the existence of God, in the religious affiliation field, even though another special field has already been set aside for that purpose), but in the end I have to decide. It would be better if I could simply leave that field blank. Even 'new age' fits better than 'non-affiliation.' EDIT: I have changed my affiliation to, 'new age' as 'Christian' is more integrally connected to a belief in God than to a love of humanity. 'New age' has none of the misleading connotations associated with the label 'Christian.'
  15. Dude

    Greetings Everyone

    Sure it is. Among the labels in the pull down menu, Christian fits me best. I usually leave that field blank, if at all possible. I was a bit surprised to see that at first the field said, Creationist. That doesn't fit at all, so I had to change it to something else. That field should be something the user can fill in himself.

Important Information

Our Terms