ScoreHero
Home | Forum | Wiki
Inbox [ Login ]Inbox [ Login ]
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist
ProfileProfile Log inLog in
Evolution
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    ScoreHero Forum Index -> Thread Hall of Fame
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Matt  





Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 3780
Location: Bethel, Vermont

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I understand that DNA can mutate, and a person can in fact end up with three working kidneys. The information on how to make a kidney was already in the DNA.

Again, I am *not* against science.
I think that our theory of evolution is wrong.
_________________
"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?"
Mark 8:36
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stryker  





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 522
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


Are you seriously resorting to Behe's discredited Irreducible Complexity (IC) argument? For starters, you would be very interested in watching NOVA's program Design on Trial (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/), a documentary about the landmark Kitzmiller v. Dover trial which classified ID as creationism and thus unsuitable for the classroom. In the documentary, it highlights the IC argument as was presented to the Judge in court - remarkably, the exact same argument that you're presenting here.

Unfortunately for you, it's not a very sophisticated or difficult to diffuse argument. Look at it this way - you are making the assumption that if a structure (in this case, he molecular-motor which powers the flagella) lacks a part, it becomes useless. Intuitively, you're correct - if the molecular-motor lost one or two proteins that allowed it to rotate, then it would be useless as a flagella. However, this doesn't mean the structure itself would be useless - as a matter of fact, the flagella likely evolved from "stinger" structures that were identical in composition tthe flagella minus the proteins necessary to cause revolution. And lo and behold, we've found microorganisms with structures nearly identical to flagella albeit stationary because they lack the finalized engine.

IC also makes another assumption about Natural Selection - that every modification has a positive or negative fitness value. This simply isn't the case. There are many times when a change could have no resulting effect on fitness; I don't have any biology examples on the top of my head, but I used to work with Evolutionary Algorithms/Genetic Programming, and the phenomenon is readily apparent there. For example, we use structures called "Fitness Landscapes" to plot the relative fitness of the collected population of genes derived in teh prorgam. Often times, there will be one or two smaller "peaks" on the landscape in addition to the ultimate fitness solution. The program can get stuck and resolve to one of these lower peaks if the initial conditions aren't set properly.

Irreducible Complexity has been completely debunked in the scientific literature. For more information on it, I strongly urge you to browse the articles on TalkOrigin's site here - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
stryker  





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 522
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Matt wrote:
I understand that DNA can mutate, and a person can in fact end up with three working kidneys. The information on how to make a kidney was already in the DNA.

Again, I am *not* against science.
I think that our theory of evolution is wrong.


If you think that the theory is incorrect, then you should very specifically spell out your grievances and conduct the work necessary to invalidate part of the theory. You are aware that Evolution is the foundation of modern biology, right? Were you to falsify any aspect of it, you would revolutionize biology. Go for the gold man!
_________________

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Matt  





Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 3780
Location: Bethel, Vermont

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stryker wrote:
Matt wrote:
I understand that DNA can mutate, and a person can in fact end up with three working kidneys. The information on how to make a kidney was already in the DNA.

Again, I am *not* against science.
I think that our theory of evolution is wrong.


If you think that the theory is incorrect, then you should very specifically spell out your grievances and conduct the work necessary to invalidate part of the theory. You are aware that Evolution is the foundation of modern biology, right? Were you to falsify any aspect of it, you would revolutionize biology. Go for the gold man!


Yes, I know it is, but I have 2 main things working against me:
First, I am not a scientist. I am an engineer. I just don't have the time and resources to devote myself to learning what I need to to go out and disprove the theory.
Second, the entire science community would fight me tooth and nail, and most likely stop me dead in my tracks, because I would be telling everyone they are wrong, and I would be planning on proving it.

Now you obviously know more about science than I do, and I have run out of arguments for the time being, so I concede this argument to you.
I could go try to study and learn more, but at the moment, like I said, I just don't have the time and resources to devote to this.

Now on that note, call me dense, or ignorant, or what have you, but our theory of evolution still does not have me convinced.
_________________
"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?"
Mark 8:36
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
crunchydedpirate  





Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Posts: 81

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sully wrote:
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?


stryker wrote:


Hi crunchy; you might be interested in reading this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html


ok, , stryker there is a flaw in your theory. In your examples both dark and light colored creatures already existed. Sure you can breed out certain aspects of a trait. What evolution suggests is spices developing new traits like armor plating or fish sprouting arms. That just doesn't add up. I don;t have the intelligence to debate it effectivlety. But I do understand that no amount of evidence I or anyone here presents will ever convince Evolutionists otherwise. Unless of course mainstream science tells them to accept it. Same with me, I am a creationists and I know I am right, I have my proof.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
djkest  





Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If evolution is actually science, why have "scientists" been spoofing the "missing link" for over 100 years. If there actually was a missing link, they wouldn't have to create one and try and pass it off as the genuine article. Ape-like humans and human-like apes do not prove that humans "evolved" from apes.

Also, on the kidneys thing. Having 3 kidneys (can happen) is different from growing a new organ that does something productive (can't happen). That would involve increasing genetic information, which never has, never will, happen.

Microevolution: Humans have been slowly getting taller the last 200 years. Could be due to better diet and health care, many speculate.

Macroevolution: Humans develop a new appendage.
_________________
Noob GH3 PC player
5 star all easy [X]
5 star all medium [ ]
Beat hard! [ ]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richie  





Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 54
Location: Hudiksvall, Sweden.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Science > Religion
_________________
[/URL]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
djkest  





Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Science" is faith. Science used to tell us the earth was flat. If you think science > religion, than science and human thought is your religion.
_________________
Noob GH3 PC player
5 star all easy [X]
5 star all medium [ ]
Beat hard! [ ]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BigE  





Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 1233
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know Matt might get mad b/c I'm posting a video in a non-video thread. But I feel it's appropriate. And Matt knows how much I love him.

Love it
_________________
XBL: WritOfMandamus


My Sig Was Apparently Too Large.


Last edited by BigE on Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message XBL Gamertag: WritOfMandamus
dreamaddict  





Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 844
Location: Renton, WA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

djkest wrote:
"Science" is faith. Science used to tell us the earth was flat. Actually, the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes used science (mathematics) to determine the circumference of the earth in about 300 BC. Science (careful observation) told us the world was round even before that, when the Greeks noticed that ships would disappear over the horizon, not to mention the evidence of astronomical measurements. If you think science > religion, than science and human thought is your religion. Only if you don't understand science or religion.

_________________
dreamaddict's tasty custom song list
-=ACTUALLY IN SYNC=-
-=NO POWER METAL=-


Sig picture brought to you by GuitarHailzā„¢
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stochastic  





Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 47

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

djkest wrote:
If evolution is actually science, why have "scientists" been spoofing the "missing link" for over 100 years. If there actually was a missing link, they wouldn't have to create one and try and pass it off as the genuine article. Ape-like humans and human-like apes do not prove that humans "evolved" from apes.

Also, on the kidneys thing. Having 3 kidneys (can happen) is different from growing a new organ that does something productive (can't happen). That would involve increasing genetic information, which never has, never will, happen.

Microevolution: Humans have been slowly getting taller the last 200 years. Could be due to better diet and health care, many speculate.

Macroevolution: Humans develop a new appendage.


I see some have already talked about some of this (thank you), but I'll add some more:

Well actually, Microevolution is usually evolution below the species level, and Macroevolution is at or above the species level (e.g. speciation). Speciation can be observed in nature and can be produced in the laboratory.

The idea that there is a lack of evidence supporting Macroevolution is false. Evolution below the species level (Micro) must necessarily produce Macroevolution, and thus accepting Microevolution means you accept Macroevolution (or that you are confused maybe, assuming you deny Macro).

Now whether or not it produces all of it is open to debate, but all modern biologists and the research that has been conducted agrees that Macroevolution does happen. Macroevolution can also produce new information. Genetic algorithms basically disprove your bit about how this is impossible.

With regards to the missing links argument, it's actually irrelevant. Yes the missing link spoof was not science, but that does not magically encompass all that biology is. You don't necessarily need to find a specific missing link in the fossil record to determine common ancestry. Many transitional fossils have been found anyway.

Quote:
"Science" is faith. Science used to tell us the earth was flat. If you think science > religion, than science and human thought is your religion.


Science is necessarily the opposite of faith, and is not a religion. In science all claims must be substantiated. You must also substantiate criticisms of a theory/etc in order for your arguments to be taken seriously (something creationists always fail to do).

With faith you don't have to substantiate anything. It's your belief.


Last edited by stochastic on Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:29 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
trofl  





Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1297
Location: Ames, IA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dreamaddict wrote:
djkest wrote:
Actually, the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes used science (mathematics) to determine the circumference of the earth in about 300 BC. Science (careful observation) told us the world was round even before that, when the Greeks noticed that ships would disappear over the horizon, not to mention the evidence of astronomical measurements. If you think science > religion, than science and human thought is your religion. Only if you don't understand science or religion.

Thanks... saying we thought the Earth was flat until Columbus is a pet peeve of mine. It was known among some cultures, as you mentioned, even before the Bible was written.
_________________
"Science. It works, bitches."
And what's the harm in ignoring it?
Back to top
View user's profile Wiki User Page Send private message Visit poster's website XBL Gamertag: wxtrofl
youhas  





Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3015
Location: Santa Clara, CA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Much appreciation to stryker for spelling out evolutionary matters in the bone-crushing detail that I did not have the endurance to post up myself. 'Twas spot-on. Your kudos are in the mail; please allow four to six weeks for delivery.

And I echo the concluding sentiment: if you disagree with the theory of evolution, proposing a superior theory with a body of supporting evidences is the way to go. "I have an alternative solution, which I will now spell out and leave open to discussion" is way, waaaaay more persuasive than "I disagree with your solution because [I don't understand it / it 'feels' wrong / of the following nitpicks], so I will complain about it, but don't actually have a better idea of my own".
_________________

Amusing the world 140 characters at a time: http://www.twitter.com/youhas
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message XBL Gamertag: youhas ahoy
stryker  





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 522
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

crunchydedpirate wrote:
Sully wrote:
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?


stryker wrote:


Hi crunchy; you might be interested in reading this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html


ok, , stryker there is a flaw in your theory. In your examples both dark and light colored creatures already existed. Sure you can breed out certain aspects of a trait. What evolution suggests is spices developing new traits like armor plating or fish sprouting arms. That just doesn't add up. I don;t have the intelligence to debate it effectivlety. But I do understand that no amount of evidence I or anyone here presents will ever convince Evolutionists otherwise. Unless of course mainstream science tells them to accept it. Same with me, I am a creationists and I know I am right, I have my proof.


And yet, we just got through talking about mutations; mutations are the ultimate source of genetic variance. Just because you don't know the mechanisms doesn't mean that one or more haven't been documented. I'll leave that research to you, though - it gets pretty complicated, and I'm too busy keeping abreast of my own field, Meteorology/Climatology, to cite any recent articles in Nature or other journals.

However, I find your attacks on "evolutionists" extremely inappropriate. Just because you aren't versed in the science doesn't mean you can just throw out ad hominems and expect to settle the argument. I don't "believe" in the theory of evolution, and even if I did, it certainly wouldn't be because it's the "mainstream" thing. Science is not a democracy. Theories that can be rigorously supported gain credibility, no matter how unorthodox they may be. The status quo never remains as such. I don't accept the theory of evolution because my Bio professors told me to;
I accept it because I've personally reviewed a mountain of the evidence supporting it, and I see an entire, unreviewed chain of evidence to go over as well.

People who have accepted the theory of evolution as a strong scientific framework would never attempt to persuade you to abandon your belief in a higher power; as a matter of fact, many "evolutionists" would tell you that they believe evolution is merely a mechanism which God set in motion to create his creation for him. Bear in mind that Evolution has nothing to do with how life formed, just with what happened to life after it got here.

Just please, leave this dead horse alone. Evolution is a remarkably sound theory; there are no (read: ZERO, ZIP, NADA, NOTHING) major objections to the core mechanics of the theory within the scientific community. If you would prefer to interpret the Bible literally and trust that document as the truth, then please, be my guest and do so. However, abandon the petty attacks on science; it only reflects poorly on yourself.

Matt wrote:
Now on that note, call me dense, or ignorant, or what have you, but our theory of evolution still does not have me convinced.


You definitely don't deserve those inappropriate labels. If you're interested, however, you would probably enjoy reading up on modern evolutionary synthesis, particularly the work that has been done in th past few decades with DNA. It has done much to verify many evolutionary predictions, and opened up new branches of evolutionary study; for instance, did you know that modern textbooks no longer teach Linneaus' nomenclature for taxonomy? Nowadays, taxonomy is taught via evolutionary relationships - students learn cladistics and phylogenetics to study the evolutionary lineage of life as we currently understand it. As a matter of fact, I can still take a giant piece of paper and reconstruct the lineage of Life using some of the larger clades (it's so much easier to remember than the old system!)
_________________

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
stryker  





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 522
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

djkest wrote:
"Science" is faith. Science used to tell us the earth was flat. If you think science > religion, than science and human thought is your religion.


That theories can be modified is the ultimate strength of science. We are always limited by our faculties and the accuracy of our measuring devices. As technology develops and we overcome these intrinsic barriers, we can verify or invalidate legacy theories, replacing them with better, more-encompassing ones.

In other words, Faith is dogmatic and static. Science is evolving ( ) and dynamic.
_________________

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    ScoreHero Forum Index -> Thread Hall of Fame All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 12 of 13

 
Jump to:  
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
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy


Powered by phpBB