| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thecaptainof 
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 7571
Location: ¯\(°_o)/¯
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| dreamaddict wrote: | | you think that's crazy? |
Um... no? Unless your definition of 'interesting' somehow overlaps with 'crazy', I suppose. I was being entirely sincere, word games (which, though I simplify slightly, is effectively what we're talking about) are always interesting to me regardless of the context. The fact that it's come up in this context adds an extra element of interest because, as you might've noticed, I enjoy debating this kind of thing and exploring all different angles regardless of which side I'm in favour of.
_________________
| yksi-kaksi-kolme wrote: | | Wow Mr. Mad, who fucked your buffalo? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Confrontational
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 1131
Location: A floating rock out in the Pacific
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt wrote: | | Mutations "are" random. From my understanding of evolution, it is the ones that are *kept* that are dictated by how they help the creature. |
In my humble opinion, where you seem to get evolution wrong is that you mix up the order of cause and effect. You're saying the mutation is kept because it helps the creature and only then, whereas I'm saying (in so many words) that the "mutation" occurs because it helps the creature, and is kept for that reason.
| Quote: | No, I do not believe in Santa Clause, for starters because he was another character based on Pagan gods, he supposedly lives in the North Pole and we know from satellite photos and manual exploration that there is no "Sant'a workshop" up there, there is no feasible way he could get food or materials for toys, and every gift given on Christmas can be traced back to a human giver.
A somewhat silly answer, yes, but that was a somewhat silly question. |
It was a stupid question, but the truth in the matter is, for the most part you don't believe in Santa Claus because there is sufficient evidence in your opinion that contradicts his existence and his works, right?
| Quote: | | Why the books were written the way they were, I don't know. That is kind of the Christian version of "why does gravity exist?" I admit that I do not have the answers to everything. |
I'd say a more appropriate comparison is "what caused the Big Bang?"
| Quote: | Now here is a tidbit for you (and one of the reasons I believe in the validity of the Bible)
But as for the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible), did you know that if you take the original Hebrew version, go into Genesis (the first book), find the first letter for the word "Torah", and go every 49 letters, you get the word "Torah". Then if you go into Exodus (the second book), you get the exact same thing. Then in Numbers and Deuteronomy (the 4th and 5th books), you get the same thing, but spelled backwards. Now, go to the third (middle) book, Leviticus. Go to the first occurrence of the first letter of the unpronounceable name of God, and go every 7 letters, you get His Name.
Now you may call this coincidence (and that would be quite the coincidence). But by the laws of mathematical chance, you would expect you could find this a few times with different numbers. Yet, 49 and 7 are the only numbers where this works (7 being one of the numbers God seems to like to use a lot). This means that there is no other number by which you can find either of these things in any part of the Torah.
Statistically, this is like winning the Powerball 5 times in a row (OK, I don't know the actual statistics, but I know they are insanely high).
For me, this is kind of like God's watermark for the Bible. And the Bible is full of stuff like this. The total number of letter in the Bible (in its original languages) is divisible by 7. So are the number of vowels (and therefor, also the number of consenants). |
Poe did something similar in one of his works, A Valentine, in which you could read off the first letter of the first line, the second letter of the second line, etc., all the way to the end, and have the name of the woman for whom the valentine was written, Frances Sargent Osgood. Did Frances write the poem? 
Okay, bad analogy, but... Isn't it possible that the Bible was originally written with things like this in mind? Perhaps the Torah was named as such because the writers chose to have "TORAH" spelled out in every 49th letter from the first T? A literary "watermark" of sorts as written by very clever men?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matt
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 3780
Location: Bethel, Vermont
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If there was only one strange thing like that in the Bible, yes, I could chalk it up to human planning. But the fact that anything even remote to that occurs at the given letters, and nothing with any other number of letters, and more strange stuff like this happen all throughout the Bible... I would like to see someone write something with so many hidden codes, while still making sense.
Poe's poem was 21 lines... something that small is far, far easier to work with, and I imagine it took him many tries to find a combination of words to get it right.
| Confrontational wrote: |
In my humble opinion, where you seem to get evolution wrong is that you mix up the order of cause and effect. You're saying the mutation is kept because it helps the creature and only then, whereas I'm saying (in so many words) that the "mutation" occurs because it helps the creature, and is kept for that reason. |
This is how I was taught evolution in school, and I don't see how it could work the way you are describing. Your DNA can't say "gee, we sure could use a bigger brain", and so it mutates itself to make your offspring have bigger brains. If this were true, wouldn't we be seeing huge steps in evolution happen all the time?
_________________
"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?"
Mark 8:36 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stryker
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 522
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt wrote: | | This is how I was taught evolution in school, and I don't see how it could work the way you are describing. Your DNA can't say "gee, we sure could use a bigger brain", and so it mutates itself to make your offspring have bigger brains. If this were true, wouldn't we be seeing huge steps in evolution happen all the time? |
With all due respect, it would be useful to know when you were taught this in school and at what grade level. You've got the entire concept of mutations at the genetic and chemical level entirely wrong. Let me try to explain it to you properly:
The first thing to understand is that the process of mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variance. The reason for this is that there are many enzymes that facilitate DNA transcription and translation, and many of these enzymes have "error-checking" actions to prevent and repair and damages to the DNA during the replication process. However, any computer scientist should immediately recognize GiGo, so if an incorrect fragment of DNA is replicated, then its copies will be incorrect.
Not all mutations are beneficial to an animal. As a matter of fact, most mutations will either 1) have little effect (because they occur in an unused portion of DNA) or 2) be detrimental to the development of an animal. For instance, if the human gene carrying the formula for hemoglobin were altered in a slight way, it is very likely that a human developing from that genetic information would not be viable.
However, not every mutation is harmful to a creature. This is the crux of microevolution - the relative frequencies of alleles in a given population tend to change over time. You asked for hard evidence for evolution, and this is where it comes in. I'm going to refer you to any introductory level college text on the raw aspects and referenced proofs of the microevolutionary process, but in the meantime, consider this textbook example:
Assume a predominantly snowy environment. On the ground live a species of hares that range in color from gray to black. In the air lives a predator of those hares, presumably a hawk with sharp eyesight. When the hawk hunts the hares, it would have an especially easy time seeing the black hares - they would stand out quite dramatically compared to the white background. However, assume that randomly, a hare was born one day and due to a mutation it has a white coat. The hawk would have a much more difficult time spotting this white hare, and thus the hare would have a much larger chance of surviving and reproducing. If it reproduced, it could spread the allele for a white coat, and its white c hildren would also be more likely to survive to a reproductive age.
Enter the concept of natural selection. The white hare is more suited to its environment than the black hare is, and thus has a higher chance of achieving reproductive success. EVentually, ti would be likely that in this population, the majority of hares would have white coats. And if you look at snowy habitats, you'll see a white hare - the snowshoe hare.
Consider the opposite situation as well - a grassy environment with predominantly grayish colored hares. Should a white coated hare somehow manifest, it would be easier to see and would likely not live to a reproductive age.
The bottom line is this: Miroevolution can not only be validated theoretically (i.e. it makes predictions which can then be verified), it can also be proven experimentally - take the evolution of drug-resistant bacteria, which can be done in the laboratory. You've got your hard evidence; what more do you want?
_________________
| Alakaiser wrote: | What's your problem with unicorns? They're a majestic, mythical creature! And the colors! The colors are great!
Really, the unicorn avatar is the best thing to ever happen to this forum. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stochastic
Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As a scientist, I don't do the whole "I believe" thing, at least not when it comes to serious issues like this. I look at the facts, and based on what is known to be true make conclusions. Evolution is a theory filled with facts and is supported by mountains of evidence, especially within the past few decades. Ironically though, despite the flood of undeniably large support for Evolution, 'Creationism' is beginning an insurgence again, especially in the U.S.
Virtually the entire creationist population is either uneducated or highly mistaken when it comes to evolutionary biology, and therefore really I don't see why there's a debate going on. There is no debate. This is like saying, assuming this happened, a quarrel about quantum physics between group a) Einstein, Heisenberg and Bohr and b) the three stooges, somehow qualifies as a debate. It doesn't, and the fact that it's treated like one in the public sphere is incredibly misleading and dumbs down the reality that is evolution. Creationism and it's intelligent design variants don't even qualify as hypotheses, and the fact they're actually taken seriously is a joke. Mere speculation doesn't count as science and most certainly shouldn't earn you any respect. Keep it to yourself and out of the political system especially.
I skimmed through the thread and read virtually none of the posts, but I'll reply to this:
| Quote: | I am a creationist (yes I believe the Earth is only roughly 6,000 years old), and I think that at the moment, neither side can produce more "hard" evidence than the other. Even fossils are misleading, as the method of carbon dating turns out to suck for things over a thousand years old.
My question to evolutionists, is if we are a result of billions of years of random mutations, then why do we have external symmetry, along with everything else in the animal kingdom? Why do flowers have radial symmetry?
There sure is a shit ton of order in a world that is supposedly the result of randomness. |
One side is most certainly producing more hard evidence than the other. You have one side that has produced no evidence and one that has produced decades of it. What are you getting at here?
How much have you read about the subject? The earth is not 6000 years old. This is on par with believing the Earth is flat. This: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html , a page done by talkorigins breaks down the reasons why you're wrong into bite size pieces.
As for your bit about carbon dating, this is precisely why no one carbon dates old fossils. Other forms of radiometric dating are used to handle ages in the millions, a long with geological methods, to produce confidence intervals of measurements that leave little room to doubt. Radiometric decay occurs via a decay constant, and there is no inherent flaw in radiometric dating. The only errors that occur are human ones, aside from a few usual suspects that we now know about and correct for.
To answer your question, it is because evolution is not random at all and has virtually nothing to do with random. Almost the entire evolutionary process runs on selections and mechanisms that are not random.
Closing comments: The "Unscientific American" is certainly a more appropriate description of society today, and most countries aren't any better. This is 2008, yet we are still running around with beliefs about thousand year old myths. I think people need a wake up call and ditch the biblical literalism. I'm not 'Anti-Theist' in that I have anything against someone who has religious beliefs or is spiritual, but believing in something that is known to be false for the sake of believing in it does not deserve a place in todays society. We live in a world that is surrounded by science and what science has done for us. It's a disgrace to the country and to those scientists that brought us everything we have to deny in the name of religion something as important as Evolution.
Last edited by stochastic on Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:12 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crunchydedpirate
Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| could someone please explain to me how evolution works? Is it survival of the fittest? For instance if a dinosaur gets attacked by a T-rex and dies then when he breeds he will have mutated dna that will allow his ancestors to escape? Oh wait he can't because he died. Maybe if he gets attack and gets away the he will have mutated dna in his sperm that will allow his ancestors escape. But wait, he did get away, so why would he need to change? hmmm. I'm not so sure about this survival of the fittest thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sully 
Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 4570
Location: Tampa, FL
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crunchydedpirate wrote: | | stuff that made Sully facepalm and shake his head |
Did you even bother to read what stryker posted three posts up?
It's abundantly clear that you are very confused in general, but is there anything specific that you need clarified? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stryker
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 522
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crunchydedpirate wrote: | | could someone please explain to me how evolution works? Is it survival of the fittest? For instance if a dinosaur gets attacked by a T-rex and dies then when he breeds he will have mutated dna that will allow his ancestors to escape? Oh wait he can't because he died. Maybe if he gets attack and gets away the he will have mutated dna in his sperm that will allow his ancestors escape. But wait, he did get away, so why would he need to change? hmmm. I'm not so sure about this survival of the fittest thing. |
Hi crunchy; you might be interested in reading this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
_________________
| Alakaiser wrote: | What's your problem with unicorns? They're a majestic, mythical creature! And the colors! The colors are great!
Really, the unicorn avatar is the best thing to ever happen to this forum. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dreamaddict
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 844
Location: Renton, WA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crunchydedpirate wrote: | | could someone please explain to me how evolution works? Is it survival of the fittest? For instance if a dinosaur gets attacked by a T-rex and dies then when he breeds he will have mutated dna that will allow his ancestors to escape? Oh wait he can't because he died. Maybe if he gets attack and gets away the he will have mutated dna in his sperm that will allow his ancestors escape. But wait, he did get away, so why would he need to change? hmmm. I'm not so sure about this survival of the fittest thing. |
What a brilliant troll, sir! You almost had me for a second but that was good. Real good. An internet for you!
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oggy15
Joined: 20 Aug 2007
Posts: 336
Location: I ASK THE QUESTIONS!!!!
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lolz, people are still talking about this...
_________________
| Venim619 wrote: | Well it looks like they're famous because she's really pretty and he... seems to have some shit on his forehead... WTF... OH, nevermind, I just got shit on my computer screen  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
devast8u
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 168
Location: 34°05'N, 118°22'W
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm, I hardly interject on the general forums, but I will in this case as this topic piques my interest  I didn't read pages 2-10, so sorry if my arguments are redundant.
I'm a Christian and I believe the Bible wholehearedly when it speaks of religious/spiritual matters. However, I stand firmly in the belief that the Bible is not a science text. It was meant to be interpreted figuratively, not literally. Yes, I believe God created the entire universe. But did he create it in 7 days? Is the earth 6000 years old? Most likely not. The Book of Genesis conveys a religious truth, not a literal one, because its authors first of all did not witness the creation, and second, they wrote in a way that was easy for their readers to understand. The Bible is just as much human as it is divine. Why? Well, as a Christian, I believe that the authors of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, I also recognize that through faulty translation and scribal errors, the Bible we have currently may or may not match what its original authors intended. So yes, I stand by evolution, although I recognize that it is not entirely accurate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matt
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 3780
Location: Bethel, Vermont
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stryker wrote: | | The bottom line is this: Miroevolution can not only be validated theoretically (i.e. it makes predictions which can then be verified), it can also be proven experimentally - take the evolution of drug-resistant bacteria, which can be done in the laboratory. You've got your hard evidence; what more do you want? |
I have no problems with micro-evolution. I know this is proven and observed. My problem is with macro-evolution.
_________________
"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?"
Mark 8:36 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stryker
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 522
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt wrote: | | stryker wrote: | | The bottom line is this: Miroevolution can not only be validated theoretically (i.e. it makes predictions which can then be verified), it can also be proven experimentally - take the evolution of drug-resistant bacteria, which can be done in the laboratory. You've got your hard evidence; what more do you want? |
I have no problems with micro-evolution. I know this is proven and observed. My problem is with macro-evolution. |
Mind pointing out a problem with macro-evolution? Speciation events are pretty well documented within the scientific literature, and there are more a handful of proposed and verified mechanisms that lead to speciation.
_________________
| Alakaiser wrote: | What's your problem with unicorns? They're a majestic, mythical creature! And the colors! The colors are great!
Really, the unicorn avatar is the best thing to ever happen to this forum. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matt
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 3780
Location: Bethel, Vermont
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My problem is I don't see how complex aspects of a creature, that need all their parts to work, could evolve.
For example, the flagellum on come tiny microorganisms (the little tail that kind of spins like a motor in order to propel it), requires 47 different, unique parts. And from what I have been told, all 47 pieces are required in order for the flagellum to be any use. This means that all 47 parts had to have appeared at the same time.
_________________
"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?"
Mark 8:36 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dreamaddict
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 844
Location: Renton, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt wrote: | My problem is I don't see how complex aspects of a creature, that need all their parts to work, could evolve.
For example, the flagellum on come tiny microorganisms (the little tail that kind of spins like a motor in order to propel it), requires 47 different, unique parts. And from what I have been told, all 47 pieces are required in order for the flagellum to be any use. This means that all 47 parts had to have appeared at the same time. |
You mean how like a teacher I once had in middle school had three kidneys and they all worked? Sort of mysterious how DNA can 'mutate' in such a precise way as to perfectly replicate one extra organ, make it functional and give it a place in her body? Keep in mind that how DNA works, and how it came about is still mysterious, at least to science. All I'm saying is that, the answers you are looking for, no one really truly has yet. Only a huge preponderance of evidence that it is no supernatural thing, or at least only 'magical' in the sense that is is a highly advanced beyond anything we could ever dream of. A way of functioning that we can, and will eventually understand through careful observation and inference. That's what science is all about.
And before it looks to be incompatible with religion...science didn't actually create everything that we study and live with. In fact, the more you learn about how the world works, the more acutely you see how miraculous everything is. I myself believe in God, if only to put a name to whatever force or phenomenon is responsible for our existence. I just don't believe that God's work operates in any kind of manner that we can't eventually understand, or that doesn't make some sort of rational sense.
So...I guess what I'm saying is that I don't believe that the creationism 'attitude' is the best way to respond to the mysteries of the universe. Not that the universe isn't mysterious and awesome.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Copyright © 2006-2024 ScoreHero, LLC
|
Powered by phpBB
|
![Inbox [ Login ]](templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_message.gif){kind=icon}
Inbox [ Login ]
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in
