theory of evolution - marxist creation

[Testosterone]

The neo-darwinist theory of evolution has collapsed. It is not even plausible any more. Evolutions are split between two theories, equally fable.

a) evolution over time with small changes
- The fossil evidence that refutes this is undeniable. no intermediary fossils have been found to exist. out of the 1/4th million fossils we have uncovered on present earth none of them have been shown to be intermediary fossils. If incremental change evolution exist, the fossil evidence would be irrefutable. It is a fable.


b) Stephen Jay Goulds punctuated equilibrium
- about as implausible as small incremental change. This states evolution takes place rapidly and abruptly.




What the theories have in common is their downfall.

Evolutionists cannot explain the Cambrian explosion which took place 530~ million years ago in which all present creatures came to be on earth. Recent discovery of the an old intact creature that was preserved in hardened lava shows no evolutionary change from it’s current relative today.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3291025.stm


Researchers are puzzled as to why the ancient creature appears so similar to its modern relatives. Their research is to be found in the journal Science.




Fossil Evidence
The fossil evidence against evolution is the death-knell to the theory

Darwin – Origin of Species


If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.23


Stephen Jay Gould a prominent evolutionist that co-created punctuated equilibrium has this to say.


The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.





Biological downfall
1) Inability to add new information to the genome is a huge downfall to the theory of evolution. Without this ability new species could not be created.

2) No beneficial mutation has ever been witnessed. Fruit fly experiments yielding millions of fruit flys have never witnessed a beneficial mution.

3) So called bacterial mutations are often loses in genetic information. This cannot be evolution since evolution by definition is evolving not degenerating.

4) DNA and RNA present a daunting task to evolutionist. Not only can neither exist separately the formation of them is so monumentally rare. DNA is a carrier of information, and RNA is a reader and transporter. This system depends on each other. The likely hood of them forming together is the likely hood of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a 747 out of the contents therein. It will never happen.

5) The improbability of forming a protein: the basis for life.


To illustrate the staggering degree of complexity involved here, let us consider a typical protein that is composed of 100 amino acids. Amino acids are molecules that can have two mirror image structures, usually referred to as "left-handed" and "right-handed" variants, as seen in Figure 6. A functional protein requires the amino acids from which it is built to be (1) all left-handed; (2) all linked together with peptide bonds (Figure 7), and (3) all in just the right sequence to fold up into the three-dimensional structure needed for biological function, as seen in Figure 8. The probability of correctly assembling a functional protein in one try in a prebiotic pond, as seen in Figure 8, is 1/10190.{48} If we took all of the carbon in the universe, converted it into amino acids, and allowed it to chemically react at the maximum permissible rate of 1013 interactions per second for five billion years, the probability of making a single functioning protein increases to only 1/1060. For this reason, chance explanations for the origin of life have been rejected. Some non-random process or intelligent designer must be responsible. However, there are no apparent nonrandom processes (such as natural selection is claimed to be in evolution) that would seem to be capable of generating the required complexity and information for the first living system.

I think this is enough information to get things stirred up. As you can see the present theory of evolution cannot answer some daunting questions. Furthermore, the theory lacks evidence on a fossil level, biological level, and molecular level. Intelligent design is a very likely possibility as evolution becomes more and more unlikely.

[Edited on 12-8-2003 by Testosterone]

[Testosterone]

More information:

http://www.origins.org/
http://evolutiondeceit.com/
http://evolutionisdead.com/

evolutionists point of view
http://www.talkorigins.org/

[peam]

I'm not going to dig into this at 4AM, but I just wanted to let you know that you have the best board name ever.

[Askip]

<< I think this is enough information to get things stirred up >>

Mostly out-of-context and self-serving info. So what are we, a mote in a gods eye? Which god? Why, your god of course. :D

[Testosterone]

If you assume god is the creator of life, then i don't believe it's necessary to go further than that. God is the creator of all, everything exists due to god.

The bibles interpretation of genesis is not very plausable as there is evidence that earth was not created in 7 days. Although i am open to the possible however slim, that this it the case.

I'm also open to the possibility that evolution is what created us and we are a by product of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, although right now i see no evidence to convince me of this.

If you accept the premise of the bing bang, you must then raise the question who created it. Since the universe is not infinite it must have a creator.

[SpunGirl]

I'm okay with not having all the answers. I look for them, but I haven't found anything I like so far.

I've found that there are people in this world who need very much to have all the answers, and need for those answers to be handed to them straightaway. Then they can spend their lives living for those answers.

That makes me sad.

-K

[Testosterone]

I don't care for answers. What i care about is proving so called widely accepted ideas false. I do not want the government feeding me subjective and unscientific theories without introducing the opposite position.

I also believe that evolution is as much based on faith as religion. Neither stands up to scientific scrutiny.

[Askip]

<< Neither stands up to scientific scrutiny >>

Considering your sources (here and in the Holocaust thread), I am not suprised at what you believe in.

:D

"Most scientific!"
The King of Siam to Anna

"I will not feed the trolls"
Anon



[Edited on 12-8-2003 by Askip]

Nothing stands up to scientifc scrutiny
We can not scientificly ecplain how the universe came to be... common theory is the big bang... question is where all the matter came from in the first place

some things science can not answer

[Overlord]

Excuse me evolution does not stand up to scientific scrutiny? lmfao. So damn, all the previous "versions" of humans were just gods fuck ups? *smirk* Unlikely to say the least, there are various examples that evolution is indeed an occuring phenomenon on this planet, and quite frankly, humans are participants in this ongoing cycle.

[Warriorbird]

So...a Christian Nazi? Hmm. Feels like some Identity. Yet at the same time you insult faith. Funny.

[Overlord]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
So...a Christian Nazi? Hmm. Feels like some Identity. Yet at the same time you insult faith. Funny.

And you are reffering to who and what?

[Warriorbird]

Thread starter.

[Weedmage Princess]

Originally posted by Testosterone
I also believe that evolution is as much based on faith as religion. Neither stands up to scientific scrutiny.

Very, very, *VERY* good point. Most people tend to think otherwise.

[StrayRogue]

Science cannot answer nor prove anything. It can only prove and answer things to within our own perception. It is one of the BIGGEST philosophical debates. Science is by no means the be-all end-all of the world. However, its a lot more stable, reasonable and within our capacities to believe simply via our sense over some BS like religion etc.

[Meos]

God is dead- Friedrich Neitzsche

[Tsa`ah]

I have read two threads started by you thus far.

It is clear that you do not have an original thought in your head. You quote uneducated sources. You point to quotes taken out of context.

Very clear indeed that you are incapable of researching your sources let alone understanding them.

I'll just write you off as a "want to be" intellectual. Without sources, you are nothing more than a slack jawed booger-eating moron. Are those banjos I hear in the background?

[Kurili]

I'll just write you off as a "want to be" intellectual. Without sources, you are nothing more than a slack jawed booger-eating moron. Are those banjos I hear in the background?


Ahhh, and how was your trip to Alabama, Tsa'ah? The banjo comment reminded me.

Acolyte Kurili

[Testosterone]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I have read two threads started by you thus far.

It is clear that you do not have an original thought in your head. You quote uneducated sources. You point to quotes taken out of context.

Very clear indeed that you are incapable of researching your sources let alone understanding them.

I'll just write you off as a "want to be" intellectual. Without sources, you are nothing more than a slack jawed booger-eating moron. Are those banjos I hear in the background?

Sometimes I feel sorry for people like you. Resorting to personal attacks, because you lack the ability to refute any of the words I say. Then you attack my sources as uneducated, as if you were a highly esteemed biochemist, paleontologist or evolutionist. Needless to say I believe what you said stands therein of itself for others to judge.

I also find it quite humorous people always assume if you do not believe in evolution that you believe in the biblical form of genesis. Where does this assumption come from? Arguing with my Philosophy professor today, in which he got owned, might I add, he started to refute my points by saying that he proved biblical genesis wrong, therefore my argument is wrong. WRONG PROFESSOR! I hope he presents some useful factual information to the argument next time he tries to bring in his 1 foot thick encyclopedia in that is filled with marxist creed and false writings.

Even if you outrageously deny the existence of a creator you cannot deny some of these quotes. Otherwise prove me wrong.

I’m sure you guys know Stephen Jay Gould, one of the most popular evolutionist. Even he saw the fossil evidence for very slow change, as Darwin said, that took long periods of time was non-existant.

First and foremost Professor, your textbook is shot down here by

Textbooks – Inferences not reality.


“The family trees which adorn our text books are based on inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”
Stephen Jay Gould,
Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. "Evolution's Erratic Pace" Natural History, May, p. 13



1/4th of a million species found – not one intermediary fossil.


“... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded.

We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.

The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.”
David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25


Evolution DEAD


Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations."
Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge,
'Species Selection: Its Range and Power,' 1988, p. 19



Cambrian explosion- DARWIN PUZZLED BY EXPLOSION OF COMPLEX LIFE


"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs."
Stephen J. Gould,
'The Panda's Thumb', 1980, p. 238-239





Inability to add NEW genetic information to genome



"With the inability of mutations of any type to produce new genetic information, the maintenance of the basic plan is to be expected....
There are limits to biological change and these limits are set by the structure and function of the genetic machinery."
L. P. Lester Ph.D. and R. G. Bohlin Ph.D,
"The Natural Limits of Biological Change"



Fruit fly experiments – NOT ONE FAVORABLE MUTATION


Fruit Fly experiments
“It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all around the world-flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.”
Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48




Last but not least
Formation of proteins from amino acid by peptide bonds. The myth of the creation of life from non living matter.

To illustrate the staggering degree of complexity involved here, let us consider a typical protein that is composed of 100 amino acids. Amino acids are molecules that can have two mirror image structures, usually referred to as "left-handed" and "right-handed" variants, as seen in Figure 6. A functional protein requires the amino acids from which it is built to be (1) all left-handed; (2) all linked together with peptide bonds (Figure 7), and (3) all in just the right sequence to fold up into the three-dimensional structure needed for biological function, as seen in Figure 8. The probability of correctly assembling a functional protein in one try in a prebiotic pond, as seen in Figure 8, is 1/10190.{48} If we took all of the carbon in the universe, converted it into amino acids, and allowed it to chemically react at the maximum permissible rate of 1013 interactions per second for five billion years, the probability of making a single functioning protein increases to only 1/1060. For this reason, chance explanations for the origin of life have been rejected. Some non-random process or intelligent designer must be responsible. However, there are no apparent nonrandom processes (such as natural selection is claimed to be in evolution) that would seem to be capable of generating the required complexity and information for the first living system.
Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall), 1998, p.406-407.


[Edited on 12-8-2003 by Testosterone]

[Warriorbird]

So...you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Ravenstorm]

Considering who you cite as an 'expert' in the Hitler thread, I consider your opinion meaningless especially after clicking on those links. Enjoy your masturbatory self deception.

Raven

[Parkbandit]

I'm pretty sure I didn't read the Hiltler thread he started.. so I think maybe I am a bit unbiased. Perhaps if I read that, I too will think he's coocoo for coconuts.

I think he did a pretty good job of presenting the case and the 'evidence' to back it up with. His thoughts are rational and logical and he seems to be well spoken. As a "non-believer" in the Almighty, I'll admit it did get me thinking.

And isn't that the purpose of posting sometimes?

[Warriorbird]

"I think this is enough information to get things stirred up." More of the problem.

[Parkbandit]

Ok, now that I did read his BS piece on the concentration camps... Can I just say Testosterone is a steaming pile after an all you can eat corn night?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Testosterone
Recent discovery of the an old intact creature that was preserved in hardened lava shows no evolutionary change from it’s current relative today.


Evolution doesn't occur unless there is an event to force it. Jellyfish have been around for a VERY long time with no changes. Why? Their niche hasn't changed. They have no challenges.



1) Inability to add new information to the genome is a huge downfall to the theory of evolution. Without this ability new species could not be created.


Yeah, it's impossible to change genes. <stare>



2) No beneficial mutation has ever been witnessed. Fruit fly experiments yielding millions of fruit flys have never witnessed a beneficial mution.


I've never witnessed an electron. This doesn't mean I don't believe they exist. But more on this later.



The likely hood of them forming together is the likely hood of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a 747 out of the contents therein. It will never happen.


One over one billion is greater than zero over one billion. Therefore, there is a change it will happen. Saying it never will is uneducated.



5) The improbability of forming a protein: the basis for life.


Again, improbable != impossible.

The main thrusts of your argument seem to be a) the fossil record doesn't support evolution and b) beneficial mutation doesn't seem to exist. I'm fairly sure you know how fossils are created, but you seem to ignore the facts of the matter. Fossils aren't created every time something dies and is buried. Specific soil, pressure, and temperature requirements need to be met. Anyone who claims that the fossil record is complete needs to be throttled until he or she comes to his or her senses.

I've seen first-hand mutation in my family. It was some science experiment in 6th grade with dominant and recessive genes. My mother and father both had recessive traits, therefore they had none of the dominant allele. However, my older brother had the dominant trait. And I'm quite sure my brother is in fact the children of my parents.

But wait, what about beneficial mutation? I'll point you to England, circa 1850. Industrialism is in full swing, and the cities of England are FILTHY. There's some sort of moth flitting around as moths tend to do. Some of these moths are white, some are black, some are mottled. As the buildings become covered in soot, the white ones stand out, as you would expect. Presto! Predation! No more white moths. These moths are now all black or mottled. Evolution. Thank you.


Originally posted by Meos
God is dead- Friedrich Neitzsche


No, Nietzche is dead. - God

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Can I just say Testosterone is a steaming pile after an all you can eat corn night?

Upon giving your question my utmost attention and pondering all possible ramifications and results of the implications inherent in allowing you to state your opinion of the person in question, I have come to the conclusion that yes, you may indeed say that Testosterone is a steaming pile after an all you can eat corn night.

Next question?

Raven

[Edited on 12-8-2003 by Ravenstorm]

[Tsa`ah]

I say you were too tame.

[HarmNone]

Testosterone comes across to me as someone who wishes he had something to say. Since he does not, he Googles for things that others have said about something he knows nothing about. This can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what he does with the information he gleans. If he but posts it on a message board without subjecting it to adequate consideration, he has only Googled his way further into ignorance.

HarmNone

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by HarmNone
...
he has only Googled his way further into ignorance.

HarmNone

Heh heh...I like that.

[Testosterone]

If gradualist change of organisms were true, the fossil evidence of evolution would be irrefutable. This, however, is not the case. No intermediary fossils exist. Change has not happened over long periods of time. Fully formed species appear on earth suddenly without previous ancestry.



Yeah, it's impossible to change genes. <stare>

You have either misinterpreted my words, or you did not want to reply to what they actually said. I said gene mutation is unable to add NEW genetic information to the genome. Changing existing gene's is not a problem, and that is why natural selection occurs. The weak genes die out and the gene pool is cleansed of them. This cannot account for macro evolution.



I've never witnessed an electron. This doesn't mean I don't believe they exist. But more on this later.

Irrefutable evidence of the existence of electrons and protons exist in the atom. This is proven science, unlike evolutionist claims. Very very poor analogy.

You also have not bred billions of fruit flys on the sole purpose of finding that gene mutation that is favorable and proving the existence of evolution. No new enzyme has ever formed; no new gland has ever formed. All gene mutation is bad for the organism. Take the analogy of an earthquake on a highly ordered building. Unlikely will the earthquake somehow strengthen the structural integrity of the building but weaken it.



One over one billion is greater than zero over one billion. Therefore, there is a change it will happen. Saying it never will is uneducated.

Not only is the probability infinity small to form a protein, those proteins must then form cells. Cells carry their biological information in DNA molecules and DNA molecules need RNA to read and send out the information. All these must have existed at the creation of the cell. This is IMPOSSIBLE. The probability is probably around 1/ 10^99999999999999999999999999999999999999999.
Do you actually believe creation by Intelligent Design is less possible than that? Or are you THAT ignorant?



Anyone who claims that the fossil record is complete needs to be throttled until he or she comes to his or her senses.

Even Stephen Jay Gould was not as ignorant as you. Out of the 1/4th million fossil's found not one has been identified by paleontologists as an intermediary fossil.



I've seen first-hand mutation in my family. It was some science experiment in 6th grade with dominant and recessive genes. My mother and father both had recessive traits, therefore they had none of the dominant allele. However, my older brother had the dominant trait. And I'm quite sure my brother is in fact the children of my parents.

Your obvious understanding of mutation is lacking. Recessive genes have nothing to do with mutation. But that was a nice try.



But wait, what about beneficial mutation? I'll point you to England, circa 1850. Industrialism is in full swing, and the cities of England are FILTHY. There's some sort of moth flitting around as moths tend to do. Some of these moths are white, some are black, some are mottled. As the buildings become covered in soot, the white ones stand out, as you would expect. Presto! Predation! No more white moths. These moths are now all black or mottled. Evolution. Thank you.


AHHH, last but not least. I was hoping someone would bring this up. Save the best for last, huh?
Let's see your profound argument for the theory of evolution.
I absolutely love this one.

Before the industrial revolution in England circa 1850, the tree barks around manchester were quite light in color. Therefore dark-colored moths on trees had little chance to camouflage on them. The white moths life, and dark moths die. Natural selection at it's best.
Then comes the industrial revolution, the widespread pollution changes the bark color on the trees. No longer are the white moths favorable due to the environment, but they are unfavorable. The black moths start to blend in and evade being eaten by predator birds. Now the tables have turned against the white moth, and black moths reign supreme on the bark tree's of manchester.
Pretty spectacular huh? Natural selection at it's finest.
This obvious misconception by you, shows that your knowledge of the theory is so remote, that you cannot even discern the fact that this is not at all macro evolution. No new part of genome has been created. No new information added. Just selective breeding. Like the breeding of animals. Breed the most superior male with the females, instead of the weak males. Profound argument, I can see a noble prize waiting for you.

Moths in England “evolving” during the 19th century is about as laughable and weak as an argument for evolution can get.

Even though, Latrinsorm, however weak her argument was still provided certain points that were in need of refuting to clarification. Others on this thread do not present any value to the topic, and attempt to smear my factual information with subjective attacks on my character.

Secondly, the argument that just because we have not witnessed it, that it doesn’t exist is quite laughable. The same can be said for god, but do you believe in god? Why would you believe something that has no proof, has never been replicated, and the historical fossil evidence for it is NIL. All the fossil evidence points to a inherit creator since species appear on earth without any ancestral predecessors.

[Edited on 12-8-2003 by Testosterone]

[Warriorbird]

Yet...you earlier denied Christianity was involved in your theories?

We going to hear about the Aryan aliens next? Tossing evolution and Christianity aside, what's your theory here?

Or is it just arguing for arguing...

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Testosterone
No intermediary fossils exist.


I think what you meant to say is that we have not FOUND any intermediary fossils, which of course is quite different.



I said gene mutation is unable to add NEW genetic information to the genome. Changing existing gene's is not a problem, and that is why natural selection occurs. The weak genes die out and the gene pool is cleansed of them. This cannot account for macro evolution.


If you aren't arguing that genes can't change, how can you argue that species can't change?



Irrefutable evidence of the existence of electrons and protons exist in the atom. This is proven science, unlike evolutionist claims. Very very poor analogy.


There is no such thing as irrefutable scientific evidence, because science is inductive.



Take the analogy of an earthquake on a highly ordered building. Unlikely will the earthquake somehow strengthen the structural integrity of the building but weaken it.


You keep saying unlikely.



This is IMPOSSIBLE.


And then you say that.



Out of the 1/4th million fossil's found not one has been identified by paleontologists as an intermediary fossil.


So you're saying if I found, say a million people in Norway (just for argument's sake) and none of them were black, no one on earth would be black? You see the parallel, I hope. My example is ludicrous because you know there are more than a thousand times as many people on earth as my million, so my sample is inadequate. However, we don't know how many fossils there are.



Your obvious understanding of mutation is lacking. Recessive genes have nothing to do with mutation. But that was a nice try.


I would say a recessive gene turning into a dominant gene was a mutation. But hey, I understand mutation as "a gene changing".



Even though, Latrinsorm, however weak her argument was


I'm a guy. And I can't really see how you see a girl's name ending in "orm", although it is a made-up name.

The problem I seem to have is this; I'm talking about natural selection that over time changes species. You seem to be concerned about the start of life and in a more general sense the unlikelihood of the creation of new material from a random process. And there are shortcomings in evolutionary theory. I have to say, though, (and this is coming from a devout Catholic) that Creationism, as a theory, is nowhere near as solid as Evolution. An infinitesmal chance is still a chance. If you can show me a theory of creation of life / divergence of species with a stronger base than Evolution, I'll be impressed.

[Testosterone]

I think what you meant to say is that we have not FOUND any intermediary fossils, which of course is quite different.

I think we can conclude that they don't exist. 0 / 250,000 fossils and none have been found. That's enough evidence for me, until you prove otherwise.



If you aren't arguing that genes can't change, how can you argue that species can't change?

Your basic understanding of evolution is very poor. Without adding new genetic information a new species cannot be formed. It will be the same species as it's predecessor. Natural selection only occurs to weed out those people.




So you're saying if I found, say a million people in Norway (just for argument's sake) and none of them were black, no one on earth would be black? You see the parallel, I hope. My example is ludicrous because you know there are more than a thousand times as many people on earth as my million, so my sample is inadequate. However, we don't know how many fossils there are.

Your analogy is quite wrong. We search for fossils on all parts of earth. In Africa, Europe, Asia, Asia Minor, South America. It is not confined to one region of earth. Please stop making ludicrous and uneducated responses.




The problem I seem to have is this; I'm talking about natural selection that over time changes species. You seem to be concerned about the start of life and in a more general sense the unlikelihood of the creation of new material from a random process. And there are shortcomings in evolutionary theory. I have to say, though, (and this is coming from a devout Catholic) that Creationism, as a theory, is nowhere near as solid as Evolution. An infinitesmal chance is still a chance. If you can show me a theory of creation of life / divergence of species with a stronger base than Evolution, I'll be impressed.

You have shown me an ignorance to evolution that many have. You do not understand the basic mechanisms of change. Further, you argue invalid points, and use very weak analogies to support them. Even going as far as the industrial moths of England which was refuted by even evolutionists 100 years. I'm not sure where you got your information from, but it's time to really open your mind and accept the fact that evolution is dead.

Now answer this question.
Give me one thing you KNOW about evolution that is a fact.

[Edited on 12-9-2003 by Testosterone]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Testosterone
Your basic understanding of evolution is very poor. Without adding new genetic information a new species cannot be formed. It will be the same species as it's predecessor.


Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will :D) but isn't a species that which can produce fertile offspring? And, following that definition, can you not concede that sufficient mutation, beneficial or otherwise, would result in individuals no longer able to productively mate (heh) with other individuals of the original species? I'll be home in a week, so I'll be able to snag my Bio text from high school and give specific examples. But if my definition of species is incorrect, again, feel free to correct me.



Your analogy is quite wrong. We search for fossils on all parts of earth. In Africa, Europe, Asia, Asia Minor, South America. It is not confined to one region of earth.

I wasn't implying you've (we've) only searched in one spot on the globe. I was implying that you (we) haven't found every fossil. And because we haven't found every fossil, it would be an unfair generalization at best to make a universal statement about fossils. This is the problem with science and all forms of induction. Just because it's never happened before doesn't mean it won't happen today.



You do not understand the basic mechanisms of change.


Please, explain them to me and the others who misunderstand.



Now answer this question.
Give me one thing you KNOW about evolution that is a fact.


Although it's technically a statement, I answer nontheless. I know for a fact that species and individuals compete, thus insuring natural selection. Case in point: Neanderthals. One species dies out, the superior species survives. I fail to see how the theory of evolution is no longer valid. And I certainly fail to see any other theory that is even remotely feasible. Perhaps it's this "marxist creation" you speak of in the title. But I confess to ignorance on that particular theory.

[Edited on 12-9-2003 by Latrinsorm]

[Bestatte]

Originally posted by Meos
God is dead- Friedrich Neitzsche

Neitzsche is dead - God

[longshot]

It's Psuedo-intellectualism.

You've picked a bunch of random shit out of context, and twisted it to fit your argument.

I don't understand the point of you posting this here either.

I'll hold off on the eating applesauce through a straw comments for now, but I can't say they are that far off.

[Tsa`ah]

posted on 12-8-2003 at 03:27 PM


Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Meos
God is dead- Friedrich Neitzsche


No, Nietzche is dead. - God

posted on 12-9-2003 at 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Bestatte

Originally posted by Meos
God is dead- Friedrich Neitzsche

Neitzsche is dead - God

I had more wit the first time.

[Warriorbird]

I'm still not getting how Darwin was a Communist, Ben.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I'm still not getting how Darwin was a Communist, Ben.

Heh.. I was thinking the same thing.. but the postings were too long. The material used does fit his profile, but more thought was put into it and much less hatred and anger.

[Testosterone]

Let’s get things straight
Micro-evolution – small change beneath the level of species
Macro-evolution – evolution to higher levels of the population

Latrinsorm, can you please post for me your basic understanding of the theory of evolution. Are you a punctualist or a gradualist?



Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will ) but isn't a species that which can produce fertile offspring? And, following that definition, can you not concede that sufficient mutation, beneficial or otherwise, would result in individuals no longer able to productively mate (heh) with other individuals of the original species? I'll be home in a week, so I'll be able to snag my Bio text from high school and give specific examples. But if my definition of species is incorrect, again, feel free to correct me.


Your definition of species is indeed incorrect.
species - A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.
The key in this definition is taxonomic classification. This represents the sorting of various animals into sized groups which share common, and identifiable traits.




I wasn't implying you've (we've) only searched in one spot on the globe. I was implying that you (we) haven't found every fossil. And because we haven't found every fossil, it would be an unfair generalization at best to make a universal statement about fossils. This is the problem with science and all forms of induction. Just because it's never happened before doesn't mean it won't happen today.

So even though there is no evidence of it’s existence, you still defend it as if it were a law of nature? This is sounding very familiar… think ..bible, genesis, god.



Please, explain them to me and the others who misunderstand.

mutation - An error in replication or other alteration of the nucleotide base sequence creating a change in the sequence of base pairs on a DNA molecule. If the change occurs in the DNA of a somatic cell, the mutation may cause a change in the organism's phenotype (leading, for example, to cancer) but will not affect the organism's offspring; only mutations in the germ cells can cause heritable changes in the offspring.

The Neo-Darwinist theory of evolution states, those very little mutations, over time, will formidably create a new species. That species will therefore replicate on earth and the inferior species will die. These little changes over time WOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN IN FOSSIL RECORDS. It would be indisputable. Fossil evidence is the death-knell to the theory.
Natural selection cannot account for macro-evolution. It only destroys the bad traits in the society.



Although it's technically a statement, I answer nontheless. I know for a fact that species and individuals compete, thus insuring natural selection. Case in point: Neanderthals. One species dies out, the superior species survives. I fail to see how the theory of evolution is no longer valid. And I certainly fail to see any other theory that is even remotely feasible. Perhaps it's this "marxist creation" you speak of in the title. But I confess to ignorance on that particular theory.

You posted no information that you actually knew about evolution.

You posted that species die out. No one disputes this. Species are created(creation or evolution whichever you believe) and species die out. This is natural selection. Further, Neanderthals and humans are a very different species. This has nothing to do with evolution. This is natural selection.

Design is design. Our cells are designed in a particular way in which we can associate with in modern day. They have certain systems, transport systems, and information, and manufacturing plants, and power plants. The cell is infinitely more complex than anything we have ever created.

But do we look at tank or a house and say, perhaps nature made that? Everything around us is made by intelligent design. This is the same thing that made our cells, and the rest of the universe. The universe has very fine and distinct constants that allow for us being here. Without them we would not be. Even further, what’s most people don’t understand about the big bang theory is that it proves a creator. Since the universe was not infinite, and it did not exist at one point, it proves that someone created it.

When I said that people put as much faith into evolution, as people in god I was not joking. I think it is becoming very clear no one has any evidence to show that gives slight hope to the hypothesis of evolution.

[Testosterone]

Please, I must post this to clarify a few misconceptions people are having.

1) I'm not ben.
2) Check my IP to make sure i'm not ben.
3) I've know ben, but do not talk to him regularly.
4) Personal attacks don't refute arguments.
5) Get a life.

[Edited on 12-9-2003 by Testosterone]

[SpunGirl]

May I just say, Testosterone, to both of your threads....


:::::::::YAAAAAAAAAAWWWWNNN::::::::::

Even the Hostess Duo can come up with more interesting things to say than you can. That's a sad day for you, my friend.

-K

[Testosterone]

Ugly and stupid people should not be able to speak.

Hmm.. I guess natural selection is dead. Just like evolution.

[SpunGirl]

Now, there's one theory you can easily prove by your mere existence. Good job!

-K

[Latrinsorm]

My understanding of evolution:

Life begins (presto!)
Life multiplies.
Life becomes varied (mutation).
Certain organisms can no longer reproduce with other organisms (speciation).
Competition and various environmental pressures begin to act, restricting certain species' reproduction (natural selection).
As a result, some species die out.
Repeat.

I suppose that would make me a gradualist, but I am unfamiliar with the exact definitions of those terms. The problem with the Cambrian explosion seems to me to be no problem at all. Mutation is a random process. It doesn't occur at a constant rate. It can be incredibly quick or incredibly slow.


Originally posted by Testosterone
Your definition of species is indeed incorrect.


Unless they've changed the definition of species in the past 7 months, no I'm not. And this proves it:



species - A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.


The key is interbreeding. If you can't interbreed you're not the same species.



So even though there is no evidence of it’s existence, you still defend it as if it were a law of nature? This is sounding very familiar… think ..bible, genesis, god.


I defend it because I have no reason to believe anything else. The same reason applies when I defend God's existence.



The Neo-Darwinist theory of evolution states, those very little mutations, over time, will formidably create a new species. That species will therefore replicate on earth and the inferior species will die. These little changes over time WOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN IN FOSSIL RECORDS. It would be indisputable. Fossil evidence is the death-knell to the theory.


Same problem with incomplete fossil record that we've had this whole discussion.



This has nothing to do with evolution. This is natural selection.


I don't know what to say to that. Natural selection and mutation are the two mechanisms that make up evolution.



Even further, what’s most people don’t understand about the big bang theory is that it proves a creator. Since the universe was not infinite, and it did not exist at one point, it proves that someone created it.


From what I understand, science does not have any idea what happened before, during, or shortly after the big bang. However, the laws of conservation of energy or matter indicate that the universe has indeed existed for infinity. Like this:
1) Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
2) There is energy.
Therefore
3) There has always been and always will be energy.



I think it is becoming very clear no one has any evidence to show that gives slight hope to the hypothesis of evolution.

It is easy to tear down. I am still waiting for an alternate hypothesis on your part to give me any reason to drop my support of evolution. But I never thought you were Ben. ;) He always seemed to have solid positions.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm


species - A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.


The key is interbreeding. If you can't interbreed you're not the same species.


I just heard a collective sigh of relief from the two goats that Edaarin and Tijay took out last night.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I just heard a collective sigh of relief from the two goats that Edaarin and Tijay took out last night.

:barf::barf::barf:

But humorous, nontheless. :lol:

[Testosterone]

Life begins (presto!)

Exactly, the creator creates life, Presto! Presto! Could not happen if life originated spontaneously from non living matter. It would be more like, proteins originate, proteins form RNA, and DNA, and all other mechanisms of life into one cell that co-depend on each other.

The mechanisms of life co-depend on each other. One cannot exist without the other. RNA needs DNA to be made. DNA needs RNA to carry information to parts of the cell. Enzymes, hormones and cell organelles all must have came to being together. Even the formation of a single protein is such a monumental task, that any reasonable person will admit that it is impossible.

Not only is this task monumental. But the first cell had to be able to.. lets see..

Life multiplies.


Bravo… Self replication in the first cell must exist, else it would die.



The key is interbreeding. If you can't interbreed you're not the same species.

No, that is not the key. That is part of the definition, but it is not absolute. Wolves and Coyotes can breed and form fertile offspring, but in nature they don’t breed. They are different species, thus you cannot classify species by breeding characteristics.



I suppose that would make me a gradualist, but I am unfamiliar with the exact definitions of those terms. The problem with the Cambrian explosion seems to me to be no problem at all. Mutation is a random process. It doesn't occur at a constant rate. It can be incredibly quick or incredibly slow.

The Cambrian was the single nagging question of Darwin. But somehow you have solved the mystery. If change were to happen, it would happen over time, and all life on earth would not have appeared in a period of 3 million years. Your whole “no problem” argument seems to be lacking in any logical sense. The probability of all life forming on earth in 3 million years is the probability of all the oxygen molecules in your room crowding in the corner and killing you through suffocation.


"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs."
Stephen J. Gould,
'The Panda's Thumb', 1980, p. 238-239





Same problem with incomplete fossil record that we've had this whole discussion.

Why do you still have faith in fossil evidence? Over 1/4th of a million fossils have been uncovered and not one was a transitional fossil. If you have any common sense, you would concede the fact that that is a very nagging problem on the gradualist theory of evolution. Do you?

This is why it is clear evolution is as much based on faith as Creation.



I don't know what to say to that. Natural selection and mutation are the two mechanisms that make up evolution.

One problem. Natural selection cannot create a new species.



1) Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
2) There is energy.
Therefore
3) There has always been and always will be energy.

This logical argument cannot apply to the creator. We know the universe is not infinite, as it is roughly 13~ billion years. Therefore matter had to come from somewhere.
The law of conservation of energy was established after the creator had created the universe (big bang). Matter and creation are both part of creation and are organized through information.


We can see this argument is going no where. The obvious facts are against the theory. While I cannot give you another theory, because no evidence exists in favor of it, but only a hypothesis that the universe and life has a certain design characteristic to it that screams Intelligent Design.
You still could not give me one thing about evolution that was TRUE. But you still cling to the hope of it’s reality. This absolutely puzzles me.

Since we both see this argument is going no where, let me ask a few questions of you.

Do you believe the monumental task of the creating the first cell is less probable than intelligent design?

Why do you still have faith in fossil evidence? This is with over 1/4th of a million fossils were discovered and as each day goes, the evidence grows in opposition of evolution.

Can you point out one mutation that adds information to the genome?

[Latrinsorm]

Listen, first off, I know FOR A FACT I'm right about the species thing. Interbreed + fertile offspring = same species. If you want to make up a new definition, that's fine, but don't expect me to change from the generally accepted definition.



The probability of all life forming on earth in 3 million years is the probability of all the oxygen molecules in your room crowding in the corner and killing you through suffocation.


Don't think they haven't tried. ;)



Why do you still have faith in fossil evidence?


That's just it! I have NO faith in fossil evidence. It is a notoriously incomplete and wanting process. Like carbon dating.



One problem. Natural selection cannot create a new species.


Under YOUR definition. Not mine.



This logical argument cannot apply to the creator.


Human logic can't be applied to anything of infinite nature. This being the case, I would expect that any infinite being would be left out of a logical debate.



We know the universe is not infinite, as it is roughly 13~ billion years.


As far as I can tell, no humans were around back then. Therefore, we try to interpolate what happened through observation and experimentation, which means science, which means induction, which means you can't KNOW anything about it. You can reasonably conclude, but you cannot ever know with 100% certainty.



You still could not give me one thing about evolution that was TRUE.


Here now, you changed it. You first asked what I knew for FACT in evolution. You never said anything about truth.



Do you believe the monumental task of the creating the first cell is less probable than intelligent design?


Yes, under the following argument:

Nothing material is perfect.
An infinite being is perfect.
Therefore, an infinite being cannot create anything material.

I know I said "create" instead of "design" but I think the same logic applies either way.



Why do you still have faith in fossil evidence?


I answered that one up there somewhere.



Can you point out one mutation that adds information to the genome?


Of course not. I'm not a biologist. Even if I were, the likelihood (which you seem awfully taken with) of a recordable instance of good mutation in 5000 or so measly years is slim to none. If any of us were alive during any of the explosions, I would expect to see one or two every 5000 years, maybe, because it was all happening at a much faster rate. When we hit the year 100,000 AD or so, I'll expect at least one, if evolution continues.

[Testosterone]

Listen, first off, I know FOR A FACT I'm right about the species thing. Interbreed + fertile offspring = same species. If you want to make up a new definition, that's fine, but don't expect me to change from the generally accepted definition.
Actually the definition I posed to you was the correct one. Interbreeding is not the only premise to define a species. Sorry, but you’re wrong.

I see you skipped the part where DNA, RNA, enzymes, hormones and of course asexual reproduction all coexisting in the first cell.

That's just it! I have NO faith in fossil evidence. It is a notoriously incomplete and wanting process. Like carbon dating.
That’s ok, because you don’t have to have any faith in fossil evidence. It does not lie. Gradual evolution cannot be explained due to the fossil evidence, therefore you decide to not believe in it. Even most evolutionary scientists saw this downfall.


Under YOUR definition. Not mine.
Actually, you clearly do not understand what natural selection is. Natural selection is survival of the fittest, it has nothing to do with genome and or species. And NO, it cannot account for a new species.

Human logic can't be applied to anything of infinite nature. This being the case, I would expect that any infinite being would be left out of a logical debate.
Wow, I don’t know where this is coming from. First you use it, then you forbid me to use it. Let me refresh your memory.


3) There has always been and always will be energy.

Ahh yes, matter always was and always will be. That sounds familiar. Infinite.. Hmm possibly..



As far as I can tell, no humans were around back then. Therefore, we try to interpolate what happened through observation and experimentation, which means science, which means induction, which means you can't KNOW anything about it. You can reasonably conclude, but you cannot ever know with 100% certainty.

So how certain are you about evolution?


Here now, you changed it. You first asked what I knew for FACT in evolution. You never said anything about truth.
And yet, you still could not answer my question. Sad. Let me pose it again. Give me one thing you know to be true about macro-evolution.


Nothing material is perfect.
An infinite being is perfect.
Therefore, an infinite being cannot create anything material.

That really doesn’t make sense. What limits a perfect being from creating anything that is not perfect?



Of course not. I'm not a biologist. Even if I were, the likelihood (which you seem awfully taken with) of a recordable instance of good mutation in 5000 or so measly years is slim to none. If any of us were alive during any of the explosions, I would expect to see one or two every 5000 years, maybe, because it was all happening at a much faster rate. When we hit the year 100,000 AD or so, I'll expect at least one, if evolution continues.

Perhaps the worst argument of all. I said nothing about a favorable mutation. I asked if you could show me any mutation that added information to the genome. You did not and then ranted on a favorable mutation. Thank you.

Further I wish for you to explain the chance that DNA, RNA, enzymes, and hormones all interdependent on each other, at the time of the creation of first cell mysteriously appeared together. Without any of the above, it would have died. Not to mention the ability to self replicate.

I think I have disproved everything you have said in this thread. Further, you could not come up with one thing that was true about macro-evolution. You also shy away from the monumental improbability of creating the first cell, and discredit fossil evidence “notoriously incomplete.” I think any logical person can see your arguments are weak in support of macro-evolution.

[Edited on 12-12-2003 by Testosterone]

[Edited on 12-12-2003 by Testosterone]

[Latrinsorm]

Ok, I had the flu, so I get one freebie, and that's the logic/infinite thing. I was wrong, but I wasn't thinking clearly. ;)

As for species, on p.465 of Campbell's Biology, 6th edition, published 2002, the concept of species is defined as "a population or group of populations whose members have the potential to interbreed with one another in nature to produce viable, fertile offspring, but who cannot produce viable, fertile offspring with members of other species." So I'm right. But I will give you this much: the book does throw in the word "viable" which I had left out of my previous definition. It also points out how it's pretty damn tough to see fossils breeding or see asexual lifeforms breed with other lifeforms.

What's awesome about this particular book is in the same chapter it talks about macroevolution. Go figure! And according to this book, "[t]he fossil record chronicles two patterns of speciation: anagensis and cladogenesis. Anagenesis, also known as phyletic evolution, is the accumluation of changes associated with the transformation of one species into another. Cladogenesis, also called branching evolution, is the budding of one or more new species from a parent species that continues to exist. Only cladogenesis can promote biological diversity by increasing the number of species."

Hot damn! New species! And evidenced in the fossil record, no less!

Originally posted by Testosterone
You also have not bred billions of fruit flys on the sole purpose of finding that gene mutation that is favorable and proving the existence of evolution. No new enzyme has ever formed; no new gland has ever formed. All gene mutation is bad for the organism.



I said nothing about a favorable mutation.

I'll let you figure that out.


That’s ok, because you don’t have to have any faith in fossil evidence. It does not lie.

So let's say I cut up, say, the Fifth Commandment into one word a piece scraps of paper and secret them around the room, and you find the following: "Thou", "shalt", and "kill" and from this you decide the Fifth Commandment is "Thou shalt kill". The evidence doesn't lie! The point: evidence gives truth. Incomplete evidence gives incomplete truth. I wouldn't call it "lying" per se, but I would at the least label it "misleading". And of course, it turns out you were wrong about fossil evidence anyway. Such is life.


So how certain are you about evolution?

85% sure.


That really doesn’t make sense. What limits a perfect being from creating anything that is not perfect?

I'm afraid I both repeated and exacerbated my logic fallacy. Neither side "makes sense", because we limit perfection. I suggest we both drop this particular line of reasoning and stick to evolution.

As for the first cell, I again consult my lovely Biology book that I highly recommend you buy and read.

"As far as we know, all life today arises only by the reproduction of preexisting life. This "life-from-life" principle is called biogenesis. But what about the first organisms? If they arose by biogenesis, then they couldn't have been the first organisms. Although there is no evidence that spontaneous generation occurs today, conditions on the early Earth were very different."

Page 516, lists a bunch of other unimportant stuff, and then:

"(1) the abiotic saynthesis of small organic molecules, such as amino acids and nucleotides; (2) the joining of these small molecules into polymers, including proteins and nucleic acids; (3) the origin of self-replicating molecules that eventually made inheritance possible; and (4) the packaging of all these molecules into "protobionts," droplets with membranes that maintained an internal chemistry different from the surroundings."

So it was not simultaneous, as it seemed you were suggesting. It was gradual. Next we get some proof (sort of):

For (1), we have that there was much less oxygen and therefore much more reduced atmosphere in the primordial days. Lightning and UV rays provide the energy to combine stuff. Thought up in the 1920's, tested and proved to within a scientific doubt in 1953.

For (2) he doesn't give a specific year, but says that by dripping solutions of the stuff from (1) on just about anything, you promote linking into chains, which makes the stuff for (2).

For (3) he points to self-replicating RNA that can be produced in (2), also he mentions how it's likely RNA precedes DNA, especially when you take the 1980's work of Tommy Cech into consideration.

So we have to package all that now. Protobionts exhibit metabolism and excitability but are not capable of precise reproduction. Not exactly life, but certainly on the right track. And they are formed in laboratory simulations of primordial soup, which is the stuff we get from (1)-(3).

What does all that mean? Not too much. It's all highly debatable. But it is FAR more likely than you are suggesting. I'm glad I finally got home and had some honest-to-God facts to consult instead of my memory.

p.s. Natural selection is defined by Darwin as differential success in reproduction and that which occurs through an interaction between the environment and the variability inherent among the individual organisms making up a population. Let's see.. variability? Genes? No you're right, natural selection has nothing to do with genes.:rolleyes:

[Testosterone]

I do not have time to respond to your post, but you should read this study.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/chromosome.shtml?main

CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS
By Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

A new study by evolutionary biologists Robert Dorit (Yale), Hiroshi Akashi (University of Chicago), and Walter Gilbert (Harvard) flies in the face of prevailing origin-of-man scenarios. l-2 In an attempt to trace the ancestry of humans, these researchers looked for genetic differences in the Y chromosome of 38 men living in different parts of the world and having different ethnic backgrounds. Since only males possess the Y chromosome, such a study offers a narrowly focused look at genetic material as it has developed over time and distance.

Several years ago, I reported on a parallel investigation of women's genetic variation.3 Because the differences found were so slight, theorists concluded that women can trace their lineage only a couple hundred thousand years at the most to a common ancestor, whom the scientists called "Eve" (I won't argue the name, but I would lean toward a more recent date of origin than 200,000 years).

To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry. The researchers, apparently committed to Darwinism, back-pedaled by doing statistical analysis on the evolutionary possibilities if the 38 men sampled somehow inaccurately represented the population at large. Based on this analysis, they concluded that men’s forefather – a single individual, not a group – lived no more than 270,00 years ago.

The challenge this study presents to Darwinism is profound. The study of women offered a shred of support for micro-evolution. The Y chromosome research lends no support for micro-evolution. As for macro-evolution, the results of both studies rule out homo erectus (0.5 to 1.5 million years ago) as a possible progenitor of modern humans.4

[Tsa`ah]

Hugh Ross has a PhD in astronomy from the University of Toronto.

So because Ross holds a degree that makes him an expert when it comes to looking through a telescope or reading the data that is received from a radio telescope, that also makes him credible at reading and translating genetic studies?

Nice.

The irony of it all is he has apparently been ostracized by fundamental creationalists for supporting the big bang theory.

He founded his group in 86, received his degree in 96 and has since been calling his belief "progressive creationalism".

Your sources leave much to be desired.

[Edit]

Yes, all of this was found using google and reading a few dozen pages that appeared in the returning results.

I hadn't heard of Ross until now, but I believe in checking the credentials of the "experts".

[Edited on 12-13-2003 by Tsa`ah]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Your sources leave much to be desired.


As we already knew from the Holocaust thread. Notice how he's been ignoring it completely.

Raven

[HarmNone]

Heh. Maybe his Google toolbar got broken? :)

HarmNone

[Latrinsorm]

I honestly did read that link pretty carefully...

...until he referred to "biblical range"...

...and until I saw that he was published in "Facts and Faith"...

...in 1995.

If you had read my post a little more carefully, you would have seen that MY source (with two authors that BOTH have Ph.D's in a branch of Biology) was published in 2002. Even pretending for the moment that your source was actually a credible biologist of some sort (which I was willing to do), all his claims are outdated. Severely. I again suggest you read the book I suggested before making any more of these ridiculous claims.

[Testosterone]

"[t]he fossil record chronicles two patterns of speciation: anagensis and cladogenesis. Anagenesis, also known as phyletic evolution, is the accumluation of changes associated with the transformation of one species into another. Cladogenesis, also called branching evolution, is the budding of one or more new species from a parent species that continues to exist. Only cladogenesis can promote biological diversity by increasing the number of species."
Wow you can read from a book, A++

Now let’s get to the real issue. What evidence did the book quote to make this statement? I will take the books words as if they were yours and won’t hold any weight in favor of them. I will also quote to you a line by Stephen Jay Gould. It goes like this



“The family trees which adorn our text books are based on inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”
Stephen Jay Gould,
Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. "Evolution's Erratic Pace" Natural History, May, p. 13

Yes, textbooks lie also. They are created by imperfect beings.



So let's say I cut up, say, the Fifth Commandment into one word a piece scraps of paper and secret them around the room, and you find the following: "Thou", "shalt", and "kill" and from this you decide the Fifth Commandment is "Thou shalt kill". The evidence doesn't lie! The point: evidence gives truth. Incomplete evidence gives incomplete truth. I wouldn't call it "lying" per se, but I would at the least label it "misleading". And of course, it turns out you were wrong about fossil evidence anyway. Such is life.

Can you agree with this?
Current fossil evidence cast a doubt over gradualist evolution.
Fair question. In the future the evidence might change toward the contrary and it might not. I believe it won’t since we discovered over 1/4th of a million fossils already.

"As far as we know, all life today arises only by the reproduction of preexisting life. This "life-from-life" principle is called biogenesis. But what about the first organisms? If they arose by biogenesis, then they couldn't have been the first organisms. Although there is no evidence that spontaneous generation occurs today, conditions on the early Earth were very different."
How can you quote a biological textbook, when it is not specific to any field of study. I can only take these quotes with a grain of salt. They do not prove me anything and add nothing of substance to this argument. There’s is no spontaneous generation. Again faith, not science. “Although there is no evidence that spontaneous generation occurs today, conditions on the early Earth were very different.”


"(1) the abiotic saynthesis of small organic molecules, such as amino acids and nucleotides; (2) the joining of these small molecules into polymers, including proteins and nucleic acids; (3) the origin of self-replicating molecules that eventually made inheritance possible; and (4) the packaging of all these molecules into "protobionts," droplets with membranes that maintained an internal chemistry different from the surroundings."

First of all it’s very hard to form amino acids in nature. Even when they do form the odds of making a useful protein are about 10^120th power. I did quote the probability if you did not see. It was on the first page, let me refresh your memory.

http://www.origins.org/articles/bradley_existenceofgod.html


To illustrate the staggering degree of complexity involved here, let us consider a typical protein that is composed of 100 amino acids. Amino acids are molecules that can have two mirror image structures, usually referred to as "left-handed" and "right-handed" variants, as seen in Figure 6. A functional protein requires the amino acids from which it is built to be (1) all left-handed; (2) all linked together with peptide bonds (Figure 7), and (3) all in just the right sequence to fold up into the three-dimensional structure needed for biological function, as seen in Figure 8. The probability of correctly assembling a functional protein in one try in a prebiotic pond, as seen in Figure 8, is 1/10190.{48} If we took all of the carbon in the universe, converted it into amino acids, and allowed it to chemically react at the maximum permissible rate of 1013 interactions per second for five billion years, the probability of making a single functioning protein increases to only 1/1060. For this reason, chance explanations for the origin of life have been rejected. Some non-random process or intelligent designer must be responsible. However, there are no apparent nonrandom processes (such as natural selection is claimed to be in evolution) that would seem to be capable of generating the required complexity and information for the first living system.




For (1), we have that there was much less oxygen and therefore much more reduced atmosphere in the primordial days. Lightning and UV rays provide the energy to combine stuff. Thought up in the 1920's, tested and proved to within a scientific doubt in 1953.

Obviously you quote Stanley Millers experiment of 1953. In his own words this experiment has been nullified. The conditions of primitive earth were nothing like that as miller had in his experiment sustained lightning energy through his gas mixture for 3 HOURS. 3 Hours of sustained lightning. What did he form? A few amino acids. Hahah, nice quote.


For (2) he doesn't give a specific year, but says that by dripping solutions of the stuff from (1) on just about anything, you promote linking into chains, which makes the stuff for (2).

Yes sequential chains of amino acids, proteins.


So we have to package all that now. Protobionts exhibit metabolism and excitability but are not capable of precise reproduction. Not exactly life, but certainly on the right track. And they are formed in laboratory simulations of primordial soup, which is the stuff we get from (1)-(3).

Please show this.

It is far more likely in the 10^-100000 for life to have originated by chance rather than an Intelligent Being creating us? I do not understand how you can even fathom to say that.

[Edited on 12-14-2003 by Testosterone]

[Chelle]

Originally posted by Askip
<< Neither stands up to scientific scrutiny >>

Considering your sources (here and in the Holocaust thread), I am not suprised at what you believe in.

:D

"Most scientific!"
The King of Siam to Anna

"I will not feed the trolls"
Anon



[Edited on 12-8-2003 by Askip]


Ditto.

The holocaust thread didn't go so well for him so I guess he's trying something else?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Testosterone
I will take the books words as if they were yours and won’t hold any weight in favor of them.


Forty-seven scientists reviewed this edition before it came out. Previous editions were reviewed by more people than I care to count. THAT is why I consider the majority of the book's information as fact. These people are biologists, chemists, physicists, doctors... they spent (perhaps too much of) their lives studying these fields. I haven't. I'm willing to bet that you haven't either.


Originally posted by Testosterone
Can you agree with this?
Current fossil evidence cast a doubt over gradualist evolution.


No I can't, because my book (49 scientists) disagree with you (some guy on the internet).

The passage you gave I didn't read, I don't have the stomach for it. The prominent author has degrees in Engineering, a respectable field, but one that has little to do with Biology. The specific quote you give even weakens your argument with that crack about 1/1060. Even if it was 1/10000 (which is probably closer to what it actually is, the excerpt doesn't give an exact figure) it's a reasonable chance.

So Miller was a tool. Big deal. He's probably Tayre's uncle or something.



It is far more likely in the 10^-100000 for life to have originated by chance rather than an Intelligent Being creating us? I do not understand how you can even fathom to say that.


We != all life

I find it infinitely more likely that my Creator would set up a process that produces all the physical things in the universe then specifically create my, yours, even Stephen Jay Gould's (whoever the hell that is) soul. Your claim that evolution is less likely than my God creating each species is ignorable because there are serious design flaws in a good number of species, including ours.

I don't understand how you can take information from uninformed sources and try to pass it off as credible data. What you have done so far is equivalent to me asking an Aborigine (or me) to explain quantum physics. He and I simply do not have the training to make an informed answer.

[Testosterone]

Forty-seven scientists reviewed this edition before it came out. Previous editions were reviewed by more people than I care to count. THAT is why I consider the majority of the book's information as fact. These people are biologists, chemists, physicists, doctors... they spent (perhaps too much of) their lives studying these fields. I haven't. I'm willing to bet that you haven't either.

I don’t care. Please post the so called evidence that these scientists present. What they say does not have any meaning to me. If they present evidence to prove their claims, then it holds more weight.

Further I quotes a prominent punctuated evolutionists, Stephen Jay Gould who said the intermediary fossil “evidence” in textbooks are made up not actual evidence of fossils. Funny how you disregarded this quote.


No I can't, because my book (49 scientists) disagree with you (some guy on the internet).

The passage you gave I didn't read, I don't have the stomach for it. The prominent author has degrees in Engineering, a respectable field, but one that has little to do with Biology. The specific quote you give even weakens your argument with that crack about 1/1060. Even if it was 1/10000 (which is probably closer to what it actually is, the excerpt doesn't give an exact figure) it's a reasonable chance.
Whoops, I agree this is my fault. The figure is 1/10^190. This is a lot greater than 1/10000 or 1/1060. It’s 10^-190 power. Again he states, if you supposed all the carbon atoms in the universe were amino acids and you made them react 10^13 times per second, over 5 billion years, the probability of forming a single protein would be 10^-60 power. Mathematicians regard anything less than 10^-50 as impossible.

So Miller was a tool. Big deal. He's probably Tayre's uncle or something.
Miller is the so called experiment you quoted that proved that you could form certain amino acids. Remember?


I find it infinitely more likely that my Creator would set up a process that produces all the physical things in the universe then specifically create my, yours, even Stephen Jay Gould's (whoever the hell that is) soul. Your claim that evolution is less likely than my God creating each species is ignorable because there are serious design flaws in a good number of species, including ours.

I refer to God as the creator. God does not necessarily have to be perfect. He can be imperfect and create us. I’m not basing god as biblical genesis as it would deem my argument worthless.


I don't understand how you can take information from uninformed sources and try to pass it off as credible data. What you have done so far is equivalent to me asking an Aborigine (or me) to explain quantum physics. He and I simply do not have the training to make an informed answer.

Again I present this question.

Tell me one thing you know about macro-evolution that is true.

You cannot answer this simple question.

[Edited on 12-15-2003 by Testosterone]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Testosterone
I don’t care. Please post the so called evidence that these scientists present. What they say does not have any meaning to me. If they present evidence to prove their claims, then it holds more weight.


Fine. You won't take any of my quoted sources, I won't take any of yours. I simply refuse to respond to Mr. Gould's or anyone else's material because I don't see any evidence that proves their claims. Because that makes for an intelligent debate.



Again I present this question.

Tell me one thing you know about macro-evolution that is true.

You cannot answer this simple question.


I believe you mean to say that I cannot answer that question to your satisfaction. I have given one thing I know about macro-evolution, but you have simply said it wasn't true. To reiterate, I said:

(on 12/09)
I know for a fact that species and individuals compete, thus insuring natural selection.

You answered:
This has nothing to do with evolution. This is natural selection.

To which I responded:
I don't know what to say to that. Natural selection and mutation are the two mechanisms that make up evolution.

To which you responded:
One problem. Natural selection cannot create a new species.

I later PROVED that I was right about the definition of species, and therefore natural selection applies to macro-evolution. Say all you want about wanting "evidence", if 50 people define species one way and 1 person defines it another, guess which one goes in the dictionary? So stop with this "true fact" bullshit. I'm sick of it. If you're just going to ignore relevant scientific data, I can't think of a reason I would debate with you.

This being the case, this will be my last post on the subject unless you are willing to accept that your current stance is scientifically unfounded.

[Testosterone]

Natural selection does not create new species.

Evidence for gradualistic evolution is non existant.

The cell is the most complex machine ever seen by humans.

[Latrinsorm]

Did you really need to give this thread the biggest bump I've ever seen to deliver that?

[Ravenstorm]

It took him that long to come up with a reply.

Raven

[Mint]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
It took him that long to come up with a reply.

Raven

I have to agree mostly because while doing some reading in old threads I saw his thread about how the holocaust never happened or some crap to that effect. This is another poster I might reconsider using the ignore poster feature on.

[Ooga Chaka]

Nothing wrong with giving a thread a bump if it spurs new conversation.

Note: I don't claim to be any sort of expert or intellectual regarding such matters, nor do i care to be. All i ask is that upon reading this, you realize that I'm just some college kid who likes to sit around and imagine the possibilities. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, as i'm not convinced of anything. And please, please don't try to disprove me, b/c i'm not trying to prove anything. If you have a reason why something I have or am about to say, is complete and utter bullshit, please INFORM me, don't act like i'm a complete idiot trying to uphold some false ideas. I'm happy to learn from you, and if you don't respect that, fuck off. :P that said, if you're interested in reading what some guy has imagined, please continue, you may find it stimulating.


In the beginning of this thread, there was a quote with a ratio that governed the likelyhood of what i'll call the "perfect combination" of chemicals/situations that would result in a living being. I'm curious if this ratio includes the insane amount of time this universe has existed (I'm well aware that cosmicly speaking, our universe has only been capable of sustaining life for a short period of time). And furthermore, if it takes into account the possibility that other universes may have existed before this one, or may still exist elsewhere as i type. Undoubtedly, if this were true, the sheer magnitude of that ratio would surely drop as it took into account the many many billions of years said universes have been around, or were around before they collapsed in on themselves or whatever. In other words, is it so unlikely that such an odd occurance as the "perfect combination" would occur somewhere, sometime? The only thing left is that it occured here...now (not NOW, but you know...back when it did occur). And it DID occur, whether by some freak accident or otherwise.

For some reason, a lot of religious folk seem to think that the idea of evolution in any sort disproves God (whose existance I can neither confirm nor deny), and therefore are hugely opposed to the idea. Who's to say that God didn't create us through evolution, or whatever other idea may come to light in the future.

Also, in the quotes used to form this thread (post #1, which i won't quote here since i'm using the fast-reply and i made the mistake of going for a quote a bit ago and lost about 45 minutes worth of typing by hitting the back button) :P there was some mention of two ideas for evolution, both of which are flawed. One of which was the idea of huge evolutionary jumps in small periods of time. My guess is this idea was largely concocted because of the "missing link" in our own evolutionary chain.

It is important to note here that what i am about to say is not my belief, though it does seem to answer some questions, but of course...raises other ones. I'm also aware that i'm not the first person to mention the idea. And i feel i'm about to lose a lot of readers, if i haven't already, but those of you with an open mind and a sense of curiosity, feel free to keep reading. I'm gonna lay it out flat first so you close-minded folk can go ahead and find something more important to do.

Alien impregnation of humans at key stages in our evolution. This would explain why there appear to be gaps in our evolutionary chain. As i said, this is not my belief, as i don't have any of those, i simply speculate on what could be. Why would aliens be interested in in the human population and where we are headed as far as evolution goes? It has long been clear that humans are destined for great things, not necassarily "good" things, but great things none the less. In the last 100 years alone, we have set foot on the moon, sent probes into deep space, we have even entertained the idea of putting colonies on Mars (though it's been impossible up to this point). Any advanced civilization would probably be able to recognize where humans were headed long before we invented anything of any technological importance. Where are we headed? Space. It's reasonable that any alien civilization who had the ability to travel here to Earth, would have a significant interest in guiding our evolution, b/c of the impact we would likely have on them in the future. Why? Who knows. Maybe they wanted to try and ensure they'd have a friendly neighbor, or maybe they wanted to instill in us, the art of war so someday we would be a worthy ally. again...who knows? Not me, i'm just some guy sitting at his desk wondering "what the fuck???"

Maybe i'll waste your time some more later defending another point i don't necassarily believe in. But what i do believe in is the fact that we here on this little blue planet floating somewhere in the milky way, in the center of some universe, which may or may not ultimately be the only one to have existed in all of time, or right now for that matter, had better start opening our little minds to the bigger picture, and imaging what possibillities may exist. Not because I want to see more open-minded people, but because when your mind wanders into unknown territory, there's great discoveries to be made.

[Mint]

Posted by Ooga Chaka For some reason, a lot of religious folk seem to think that the idea of evolution in any sort disproves God (whose existance I can neither confirm nor deny), and therefore are hugely opposed to the idea. Who's to say that God didn't create us through evolution, or whatever other idea may come to light in the future.

I agree with this statement. And nice post btw.

[Edaarin]

In response to the Cambrian explosion...which occurred some 560 million years ago. You're wrong in your assumption that this is where all present creatures came to be on Earth. The first ANIMALS appeared around this time, and what followed was a rapid DIVERSIFICATION of life.

At 560ish mya, simple invertebrates such as sponges and jellyfish appear in the fossil record. In roughly 40 million years, the other major groups of animals come into existence. Read up on the major studies done on the Ediacaran and Burgess Shale faunas, and the Duoshantao microfossils. Anyway, here's where you might get lost, because I'm about to explain exactly how mutations can drive evolutionary development.

As it stands, the current thought is that a combination of genetic duplication events that created new copies of Hox loci, changes in timing of existing genes, changes in location of said genes, and expression could all be responsible for adapatations such as the origin of the hand and foot.

Proteins coded by homeotic loci are what are responsible for the three-dimensional patterns of animals in development (ie, tissue and structures such as limbs). The origin, elaboration, and changes in timing/location of expression are plausibly what drove the Cambrian explosion. Now lets assume that new genes from duplication occurred. First of all, the number and identity of Hox loci is different among Domain Eukarya, which is important in establishing the hypothesis that new bodies can come from new genes. Secondly, groups with simple bodies such as Poriferans branched off early in the phylogenetic tree, and predictably have fewer Hox genes than groups that branch off later. So that indicates that the Hox cluster has increased over time, and during evolution.

I can't quite explain how tetrapods evolved (empirical evidence implies that our limbs evolved from fins), but the general idea is that changes in the timing and expression of the hoxd-11 locus and a gene called Sonic hedgehog are responsible. A late shift in the expression of Shh and a shift in the location of hoxd-11 that occurs in mammals but doesn't in fish, as well as the magnitude of expression, are significantly different in fish and mammals. As of now, this is the proposed mechanism for the evolution of limbs, and while its not perfect, I think it's far more plausible than any of the alternatives set forth by you.

(A lot of the last two paragraphs was paraphrased from my Applied Molecular Genetics textbook).

[Edited on 2-27-2004 by Edaarin]

[Edaarin]

Okay. Reading back over the thread, it seems one of your biggest beefs is with the fossil evidence. Do you have any idea how difficult it is for certain species to fossilize? The fossil record is completely biased towards certain organisms and habitats.

Things in environments where mineralization is faster than decay (such as swamps and marshes) will obviously produce more fossils. Similarly, organisms that have parts that are difficult to decompose will show up more often as fossils (this is why there is an abundance of fossilized shark teeth, but no skeletons because cartilage decays quickly. Also why there are a lot of things made out of hard material such as snail shells, etc). We don't have a lot of records of ancient fossils, because fossils found in rock and Earth are DESTROYED not only by wind and erosion, but by being melted or altered by increased heat and pressure as they move downward into deeper layers of the Earth when tectonic plates come into contact.

In short, it's a NONRANDOM sample of the past. Fossilization is a VERY unlikely event. If you consider the first bird in the fossil record, there are perhaps 7 or 8 Archaeopteryx fossil specimens in the world. Consider that if they lived for around 10 years, and that evidence indicates they existed for 2 million years. If the population size at any one time (let's pick a random one, say 1,000) was constant, then there were what, 200,000,000 Archaeopteryx died and could have been fossilized. Yet there are only a bare handful. That means at MOST, there was a 1/20,000,000 shot of being fossilized.

Satisfied yet? Hard to refute things that aren't googled, isn't it.

EDIT: Made it into paragraph format, easier to read. :)

[Edited on 2-27-2004 by Edaarin]

[Parkbandit]

Give em hell Edaarin!

Nice post. Stupid bump.

[Galleazzo]

Really stupid fucking thread.

You know the best part about science? Unlike the religious fuckwit ideologues, most scientists admit when they don't know something for sure, admit when they have a surmise or a theory instead of fact, and try to think of something else when they're proven wrong.

But the fuckwit religious nuts make things up to bolster their fairy tales when they don't have facts, lie about the other side's facts when they've nothing else to say, and just plain ignore straight challenges of fact.

So all you "creation scientists" and other radical Christian bagheads, go back to sucking the shit out of your lying books and

SHUT THE FUCK UP

:rant:

[Edited on 2/27/2004 by Galleazzo]

[Mint]

Originally posted by Galleazzo
Really stupid fucking thread.


Gotta disagree with you there. Any thread that results in some of the thought provoking and intelligent replies (i.e. Ooga Chaka, Edaarin, and of course, I would pay to see some of Tsa'ah's insults as long as they stay directed elsewhere) I have read is a good thread even when I disagree and possibly dislike the originator of the thread.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ooga Chaka
Alien impregnation of humans at key stages in our evolution. While I disagree with that particular mechanism (eewwwwww) it is entirely possible panspermia can be credited with accelerating developement of life. Consider this: certain forms of life can be frozen (for a freaking long-ass time) and, once thawed out, continue along life as normal. What is it about interplanetary space that makes it non-livable? Vacuum, cold, and nasty rays of all kinds. It is fact that these things called "quinones" are roving around space and like to form little bubbles with other carbon stuff. Quinones (besides a ton of other stuff) totally block out uv rays.

So if we were to freeze up one of those microscopic organisms, wrap it in quinones, and launch it off into space, it could conceivably land on another planet somewhere, and given the right conditions, create life. The only problem is that sunlight has a tendency to melt and dry up stuff, so we'd have to launch a lot of them just to be safe.

Mars used to have water (until about 1 million years ago) and blasting Mars with meteorites and stuff can send stuff to Earth (on account of that gravity thing) thus we could have received some "alien impregnation" at just the right time to help us out with that hole "start life" business.

references: "Life's Far-Flung Raw Materials" by Bernstein et al, Scientific American July 1999
"Recent Water on Mars and the Origin of Martian Gullies" by someone who's name I forget, she was smart though (and had a nice smile)

[Testosterone]

In the beginning of this thread, there was a quote with a ratio that governed the likelyhood of what i'll call the "perfect combination" of chemicals/situations that would result in a living being.

You have to realize. This likelihood was to create a single protein molecule out of a sequence of amino acids (which have to be present and is yet undetermined if they were in early earths - read more what i said about millers experiment). This is not LIFE. It has no properties of life, it is merely the building block of life. The real absence is information and the ability to reproduce.

Your argument is really flawed. The universe is about 12B years from the bing bang. We can assuredly consider that nothing existed before that that could produce life. This was a major disappointment to evolutionists as it blew away the probability of life forming out of innate matter.


Galleazzo: You’re retarded, fat, depressed, and ...other unacceptable insults!...~HarmNone

Edaarin: The fact that no transitional fossils exist, and that there are HUGE generational gaps between existing fossils is not changed. These gaps are not just one or two generations but hundreds of generations wide. Fossil evidence really weakens the theory as a whole.

Also you have no explanation for the complexity of life, and abiogenesis. There is an inherit design that all life has as the most simple molecules. This is not a product of randomness. You also cannot explain the formation of a protein, and evolution into self replicating proteins. Why? Because it is a fairytale. Do you believe in abiogenesis or are you a creator / evolution guy?

If you even look at the structure of hemoglobin and a one amino acid change in it’s primary structure, it gives you sickle-cell anemia. Mutations are not FAVORABLE. No favorable mutation has ever been witnessed by humans. Changes in the nucleic acid code will hurt you not harm you.

If you look at the complexity of cells, an intelligent creator must be considered. Everything works perfectly.

Intelligent Design is a very likely scenario of creation of life on earth.

[Edited on 2-27-2004 by HarmNone]

[Edaarin]

Show me your intelligent creator, and I'll eat my words. Until then, your theory is backed up only by your disbelief in other theories, and THAT is flawed logic.

As for mutations not being favorable...you can't honestly believe that. Look at HIV, or any of a multitude of viruses/bacteria. They evolve through mutations resistance to antibiotics. While this is certainly not beneficial to us, the mutations (THEIR mutations) is beneficial to them in that developing resistance helps increase their likelihood of survival. Take a colony of bacteria. Culture them on an agar plate covered with penicillin or tetracycline or another antibiotic effective against them. Guess what? They die. But transfer a plasmid containing a TetR or AmpR resistance gene, and guess what, they live.

It's the same as with mutations. Because they can reproduce so quickly (in many cases, another generation can be produced in less than 20 minutes), and their DNA proofreading mechanism isn't nearly as advanced as ours, they're far more liable to make a mistake in transcribing. With HIV, a mistake is made in roughly 1 in 8000 bases, which when you consider our mistake rate is less than one in one BILLION, is a considerable amount. Now, the chances that one mutation occurs in one specific gene (considering their genome is WAY smaller than ours) that might code for antibiotic resistance is pretty good spread over time.

This is why treatment for HIV is so difficult, because over a year or two the target in the virus that the drug tries to disrupt changes. A point mutation in the reverse transcriptase in the part of the enzyme that binds thymidine is solely responsible for the ineffectiveness of the drug azidothymidine, which researchers had thought might stop HIV infections cold forever.

[Edaarin]

I'm no longer a moderator, but I'd like to ask that we continue this as a civil debate. I enjoy debating as much as the next person, but when insults begin being tossed about that's when threads degenerate from intelligent conversation to retarded playground fights.

[Galleazzo]

I deleted my own reply. Just struck me that he's going all homophobe on us, and that's kinda off policy, right?

[HarmNone]

Yes, Galleazzo, it is. :)

HarmNone thanks you for deleting your response

[Galleazzo]

No problem. Guy's really something of a loser, and it's a shame to waste good invective on an easy target.

[Testosterone]

Originally posted by Edaarin
Show me your intelligent creator, and I'll eat my words. Until then, your theory is backed up only by your disbelief in other theories, and THAT is flawed logic.

As for mutations not being favorable...you can't honestly believe that. Look at HIV, or any of a multitude of viruses/bacteria. They evolve through mutations resistance to antibiotics. While this is certainly not beneficial to us, the mutations (THEIR mutations) is beneficial to them in that developing resistance helps increase their likelihood of survival. Take a colony of bacteria. Culture them on an agar plate covered with penicillin or tetracycline or another antibiotic effective against them. Guess what? They die. But transfer a plasmid containing a TetR or AmpR resistance gene, and guess what, they live.

It's the same as with mutations. Because they can reproduce so quickly (in many cases, another generation can be produced in less than 20 minutes), and their DNA proofreading mechanism isn't nearly as advanced as ours, they're far more liable to make a mistake in transcribing. With HIV, a mistake is made in roughly 1 in 8000 bases, which when you consider our mistake rate is less than one in one BILLION, is a considerable amount. Now, the chances that one mutation occurs in one specific gene (considering their genome is WAY smaller than ours) that might code for antibiotic resistance is pretty good spread over time.

This is why treatment for HIV is so difficult, because over a year or two the target in the virus that the drug tries to disrupt changes. A point mutation in the reverse transcriptase in the part of the enzyme that binds thymidine is solely responsible for the ineffectiveness of the drug azidothymidine, which researchers had thought might stop HIV infections cold forever.

Exactly. Virus mutations are most often results of loss of information to the genome in which they resist antibiotics. These live, natural selection. Do you call loss of information to the genome evolution?

Show me an instance where a virus added information to the genome to become resistant to antibiotics. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, i just want to see it.

[Testosterone]

I'm not the one who started the insults. This fellow, who has no open mind and rules out any acceptable notion that we are created beings (which is not far fetched) was the one who began insulting.

You cannot deny an intelligent creator is a possibility. I am still open to evolution and abiogenesis, however unlikely it is. Right now it just seems very far fetched to me that all cellular organelles and the cell itself was formed by a random process. This includes the formation of proteins, DNA, RNA, mitochondria, nucleus, enzymes, lysosomes, endoplasmic reticulum all which we would not exist if they did not function in perfect harmony.

The cell is a very beautiful organism.

BTW - I convinced my philosophy teacher the unlikeness of abiogenesis and argued with students in the class who really do not know much about the theory of evolution. They were blind and dumb. I don't even think they know the basic premise of the theory.

Also i wonder how many people in that poll voted for evolution and do not know the mechanism of how it happens. Talk about zombies.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Testosterone
I convinced my philosophy teacher If you had convinced a biology teacher, I would have been impressed. ;)

[Mint]

Originally posted by Testosterone

Also i wonder how many people in that poll voted for evolution and do not know the mechanism of how it happens. Talk about zombies.

If you are referring to the poll posted on these boards um IT WAS NOT A TEST. It was an OPINION poll.

[Testosterone]

Originally posted by Mint

Originally posted by Testosterone

Also i wonder how many people in that poll voted for evolution and do not know the mechanism of how it happens. Talk about zombies.

If you are referring to the poll posted on these boards um IT WAS NOT A TEST. It was an OPINION poll.

How do you have a opinion on something when you do not understand it? You just contradicted yourself. That's the most utterly ridicilous concept i've ever heard.

If you have no understanding of evolution, DON'T VOTE FOR IT.

If you have no understanding of creation, DON'T VOTE FOR IT.

If you don't know either, get a book, stop stuffing your face with twinkies, stop playing a game called gemstone, and read. Then come back and vote.

[Testosterone]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Testosterone
I convinced my philosophy teacher If you had convinced a biology teacher, I would have been impressed. ;)

That's great. Many microbiologists agree that the complexity of the cell rules out abiognesis definitively.

[Mint]

I love twinkies...my OPINION. I think you need to find a rock to climb under again...once again my OPINION.

[Testosterone]

You base your opinion on chemical signals interpreted by your brain when you consume twinkies. There is a reason you love twinkies, and it is perhaps genetic. Your brain sees pleasure, and that's the reason you love them.

This is really a microevolutionary development. We could not survive if we did not eat food, or have pleasure for food. Our species would die, ie. natural selection.

This is why a lot of people are predisposed to obesity. Obesity, or the storage of fat would actually be a microevolutionary benefit in the past. Fat people are very efficient at storing fat which is to be used for energy later.

[Mint]

Originally posted by Testosterone
You base your opinion on chemical signals interpreted by your brain when you consume twinkies. There is a reason you love twinkies, and it is perhaps genetic. Your brain sees pleasure, and that's the reason you love them.

This is really a microevolutionary development. We could not survive if we did not eat food, or have pleasure for food. Our species would die, ie. natural selection.

This is why a lot of people are predisposed to obesity. Obesity, or the storage of fat would actually be a microevolutionary benefit in the past. Fat people are very efficient at storing fat which is to be used for energy later.

Heh, I think you are calling me fat possibly? I weigh 124 pounds. At 5 ft 5 inches. Oh and I LOVE twinkies. You really will have to try harder if this was some attempt at an insult....

[Testosterone]

I never called you fat.

I explained the physiological reason your body loves twinkies.

Why did you interpret this as an insult?

[Mint]

Originally posted by Testosterone
I never called you fat.

I explained the physiological reason your body loves twinkies.

Why did you interpret this as an insult?

Perhaps because of the source. I am through with you now...buh bye.

[Testosterone]

Originally posted by Mint

Originally posted by Testosterone
I never called you fat.

I explained the physiological reason your body loves twinkies.

Why did you interpret this as an insult?

Perhaps because of the source. I am through with you now...buh bye.

Thank you for your 'genius' input in this thread. I know it wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't for you.

Good day.

[Mint]

Unlike you I dont and have never claimed to be a genius. You should try it sometime...

[Edaarin]

EDIT: Harmnone's point well taken. :)

[Edited on 2-28-2004 by Edaarin]

[HarmNone]

TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!

[Ben]

This topic is still going????????/

[Mint]

Originally posted by HarmNone
TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!

I wonder, do they run in packs HarmNone? Just curious.

[HarmNone]

Normally, Mint, trolls are singular entities. They cannot even stand each other! However, if they are fed they tend to congregate at the feeding station. One might liken them to cockroaches at the aftermath of a messy Bar-B-Que. ;)

HarmNone hates cockroaches, and is not any more fond of trolls

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Testosterone
Exactly. Virus mutations are most often results of loss of information to the genome in which they resist antibiotics. These live, natural selection. Do you call loss of information to the genome evolution?

Show me an instance where a virus added information to the genome to become resistant to antibiotics. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, i just want to see it.

Ewww...

Do research more. A virus has no immunity to an antibiotic simply because an antibiotic has no effect on a virus.

It is highly debated even today if a virus is by definition a form of life. It is simply genetic code (RNA) within a protein sheath. A virus can only reproduce within a living cell by taking over the nucleus and re-writing the cell's function to re-produce the virus.

Variation comes into play when one or more constructed virus' deviate from the original coding, thus eluding the immune system tagging function. One could easily argue this is the viral form of evolution.

Again, a virus is not affected nor builds resistance to anti-biotics.

The bacteria cultures within the digestive tracts of humans are excellent examples of evolution.

One of the biggest problems when using anti-biotics of any sort is the potential danger to symbiotic bacteria we culture in our digestive systems. Amazingly these bacteria are strongly immune to most conventional antibiotics. 40 years ago this was not the case and it wasn't uncommon for people to come down with some nutritional ailment after a cillin series.

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Mint
I love twinkies...my OPINION. I think you need to find a rock to climb under again...once again my OPINION.

And you are a goddess ... my OPINION.

Damn, lack-of-Testosterone is a pluperfect jackass. Guess HarmNone is right, this is troll city.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Testosterone

Originally posted by Mint

Originally posted by Testosterone

Also i wonder how many people in that poll voted for evolution and do not know the mechanism of how it happens. Talk about zombies.

If you are referring to the poll posted on these boards um IT WAS NOT A TEST. It was an OPINION poll.

How do you have a opinion on something when you do not understand it? You just contradicted yourself. That's the most utterly ridicilous concept i've ever heard.

If you have no understanding of evolution, DON'T VOTE FOR IT.

If you have no understanding of creation, DON'T VOTE FOR IT.

If you don't know either, get a book, stop stuffing your face with twinkies, stop playing a game called gemstone, and read. Then come back and vote.

You say just 2 or 3 posts before this that "You cannot deny an intelligent creator is a possibility." and then bash anyone that doesn't vote for either evolution or Creationism? Come now. While I cannot PROVE that there is not a God.. I can give you more plausable theories as to why there is life on the Earth other than just evolution:

1) Space aliens came to Earth, dropped off some samples and left.

2) Huge meteor containing genetic code and proteins slammed into the Earth, dispersing the building blocks for life.

3) When Krypton blew up, they sent more than one spaceship. They also didn't realize the yellow sun did nothing for their son.

4) We are not really alive.. this is nothing more than a computer simulation... aka The Matrix.

[Testosterone]

You can use proofs to show the existence of a god. Just look at St. Thomas Aquinas's proofs, etc. Stop being a raghead fuck.

Your examples are why I argue Intelligent Design and not "god" in a christian or some other way. This definition does not carry along omnipotent, omniscient or any of the biblical stories. It is a lot easier to disprove a christian god once you start to disprove the passages in the bible with all the carbon dating we have.

[Parkbandit]

Sorry, but to me, your "Intelligent Design" theory is simply another way to explain the unknown... nothing more. Because we cannot give proof as to how life once began on this planet.. because we cannot show how that life developed into what it is today.. we use these "Intelligent Design" theories to say "Ah, that's how it was done. Gotcha".

It's a nice neat bundle of 'Gotcha' in my book... nothing more.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Testosterone
You can use proofs to show the existence of a god. Just look at St. Thomas Aquinas's proofs, etc. Stop being a raghead fuck.


And because I don't agree with your need to have an explanation.. you call me a 'raghead fuck'? Wow. Great debating skills there Charlie.

So I would be really smart if I agreed with you and called it a day. Uh huh.

[Warriorbird]

Conservatives like Parkbandit make me think we're not all actually going to die when Bush gets reelected. Wahoo! Now if only the other 95% were that intelligent and articulate.

:evil grin:

[Latrinsorm]

Carbon dating doesn't disprove a single word of the Bible. Don't be so literal.

And the only way to prove the existence of God is to have Him be Perfect, or Infinite, or some other Word you can Capitalize that means the same Thing.

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Testosterone
You can use proofs to show the existence of a god. Just look at St. Thomas Aquinas's proofs, etc. Stop being a raghead fuck.

Yeah, try this on, you asshat:

1) There is a can of Sam's Choice coke on my desk.

2) Sam Walton founded WalMart.

3) Walton is dead and is either in heaven or hell.

4) The can of coke is red.

5) Hell and its denizens are usually depicted in red.

6) The Devil rules Hell.

7) Therefore my coke is satanic.

That's a "proof" too and it PROVED that my coke is evil. It also proved WalMart is evil, but that's probably true.

"Proofs" are a flaming heap of suck if what goes into it is created by shit-for-brains asshats like you.

[Mint]

Originally posted by Galleazzo

Originally posted by Mint
I love twinkies...my OPINION. I think you need to find a rock to climb under again...once again my OPINION.

And you are a goddess ... my OPINION.


Uh you do know that my comment was aimed at Testosterone right? AND OH MY GOD I FIND MYSELF LIKING GALLEAZZO. Holy crap I am shallow.

[Galleazzo]

Yep, I know. I was just showing my appreciation.