U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-25-2009, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Houston/Heights
2,637 posts, read 2,740,167 times
Reputation: 943

Advertisements

So there is no actual proof to support his theory, one way or the other, after all these years then. ---Good scam I'd say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-10-2009, 01:37 AM
 
63 posts, read 174,694 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific View Post
Okay , Bio-chemistry Major , Do you even know what the difference is between the word Theory and the word FACT are ???
Yes. I really doubt you do. A theory is a testable hypothesis. It has nothing to do whether or not it was proven.

Do you believe in Newton's "THEORY of Gravity" (that objects with mass exert gravitational force on other objects) or is there "intelligent falling."

Do you believe in Einstein's "THEORY of Relativity" (that mass can be converted into pure energy via E=MC^2, and conversely, pure energy can be converted into energy, M=E/C^2) or is there "intelligent nuclear fission?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 01:49 AM
 
63 posts, read 174,694 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific View Post

Actually it is a built in intelligent genetic algorithm that is built into every lifeform to try and adapt to any set of environmental circumstances. That's not evolution. It's a brilliantly designed informational program incorporated into the DNA of all living organisms. Were you aware that even your own immune system is intelligently programmed to adapt to any new germs it's never encountered before ??? The problem is that human kind is subject to imperfections of their own stupidity and actions. The also ignore moral and physical laws which break down their immune system in the first place and in some cases render it incapable of anything.

Even the Swine Flu is the direct result of human beings not following physical and moral laws. Humans created circumstances for which these organisms have had to adapt and morph to survive. Unhealthy and unsanitary living conditions, immoral behavior, greed and selfishness, war, famine, and pestilence in that order also brought on the early 1920s Spanish influenza which killed millions. It was human caused and certainly not something to rejoice over and celebrate.
You attack the Left for Evolution, but you sound like Thabo Mbeki, the former leader of the Socialist African National Congress and president of South Africa, who for years refused donations of free anti-HIV drugs because attributed AIDS to unsanitary and immoral living rather than AIDS like you do (he also said lemon grass and showering was an effective treatement for AIDS) His stupidity and ignorance has led to an AIDS Holocaust in South Africa; some people in his own country want him tried for genocide.

Quote:
Since you are more qualified than anyone else here, please cite us an empirical scientific example of how any brilliant informational codes morph from nothing but blind pointless indifference through nothing more than random chances of physics and chemistry.
Do you know how many cells there are in your body? Over 50 Trillion, most (but not all, like your nervous system cells) dividing continuously. By the time you die, you're body will have generated QUADRILLIONS of cells. Each contains a strand of DNA, comprised of hundreds of thousands of nucleotide pairs (A molecules tied to T molecules, G molecules tied to C molecules)

Are you telling me that it's NOT possible for solar radiation, reactive oxides, mutagenic chemicals or even a malfunctioning Polymerase molecules (a large complex that scans and copies a DNA molecule every time a cell divides) to alter DNA?

Let me tell you an project I did for my Genomics class earlier this years...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 02:05 AM
 
63 posts, read 174,694 times
Reputation: 81
We were studying pesticide resistance in fruit flies. About 50+ years ago, a pesticide called Dieldrin was extremely popular in combating fruit fly infestations. However, every year, the percentage of flies that can survive an Dieldrin attack has been increasing.

We studied the genome (the genetic code) of regular fruit flies; ones that had been killed by the pesticides, and compared it against the genome of those flies who could withstand Dieldrin.

Dieldrin works by attacking the nervous system. Every sensation you feel right now is caused by waves of stimulation and relaxation in your nervous system. Without a relaxation phase, the slightest stimulation will eventually cascade and swell up and overload your nervous system; a breeze will cause you to convulse uncontrollably, a sound will cause your muscles to cramp so hard your bones break, a thought will cause a heart attack; you get the picture.

Gamma Aminobutyric Acid (or GABA) is a chemical most organisms produce to induce a relaxation phase in nerve cells after excitation. In order to work, it has to bind to a GABA-receptor on the cell. Dieldrin works by blocking GABA-receptors (sort of like breaking a key into a door so that other keys can't get in) causing the fly to flip out and die afterwards.

However, flies that can survive Dieldrin have odly shapped GABA receptors than do normal flies. The Dieldrin cannot bind to it and it remains unblocked. We've studied the gene and found that the gene for the GABA in pesticide-resistant flies is different from that of normal flies (we also found that the gene for the GABA receptor in flies is the same for almost every organism with a nervous system)

THIS is evolution! This is survival of the fittest! The flies that can survive pesticides pass on their pesticide-resistant traits to their offspring, while the weak die off. I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 08:39 AM
 
31 posts, read 34,045 times
Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58robbo View Post
the only reason i bothered to bring this up is because it seems to take up some time in presidential debates and people tend to get quite hot under the collar. personally i couldn't think of anything more irrelevant but here is my take on the topic:

i don't believe in evolution like i don't believe in 99% of the subjective nonsense which was taught to me at school! let me just clarify why:
i don't believe in evolution because it is not a topic which i consider worthy enough of my time to research all the evidence for and against. unless i have personally had the time to sit down and mull over the facts, i don't really believe in anything! i just cannot take for granted what other people spout as fact. this is not to say that i disagree with darwin's theory just that i reserve the right to not have an opinion. as an atheist though i don't believe in creationism but that's a topic for another thread.

the thing i find puzzling though is how the left wing intellegentsia is uber critical of conservative politicians views on the issue. they spout out darwin's words as undeniable. they never seem to want to bring up any of his later work namely, 'the descent of man' commonly recognized to have been an instrumental idea in the Holocaust.

So you profess a willful ignorance on evolution, because it's not "worthy of your time" to research the facts on, but then when people who actually have researched the facts on it understand the facts and criticize conservative politicians who deny evolution, you claim that they can't possibly be right to do so?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 08:56 AM
 
31 posts, read 34,045 times
Reputation: 47


Atomic theory. Just a theory, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 09:09 AM
 
31 posts, read 34,045 times
Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific View Post
You simply have a faith baised belief in what the Most Right Reverend Richard Dawkins said of DNA as nothing more than "a lucky chemical accident". That is one of the most unscientific statements a university educated man could ever make and followers of the good Reverend likewise show themselves to be actually anti-science.

Have you actually read Dawkins yourself, or are you just copy-pasting talking points from Creationist websites with out of context quotes? Yes, in a way, the early beginnings of life were a lucky chemical accident, statistically improbable to occur at any given moment. However, what you're failing to understand is that the probability of even an unlikely event occurring substantially increases as the chances for it to happen increase.

Let's look at it this way. Suppose you play the lottery, with your birthday as your numbers picks. Today, you buy a lottery ticket. I'll pretty much guarantee you DON'T win. If you do, send me a check for telling you to do so. Now tomorrow, you play again. Probably still nothing. Statistically, it's very improbable that you would have won the first time, or the second. But say you kept playing your birthday every day for a million years. Eventually, that number is bound to come up.

In much the same way, the "lucky chemical accident" of life on Earth was unlikely to happen at any given moment, even with the ideal conditions available. However, it had BILLIONS of years worth of opportunity, and only had to happen once. At some point, it did. The lucky chemical accident was actually pretty much inevitable, given the amount of time it had to work with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 11:26 AM
 
Location: vagabond
2,612 posts, read 3,477,837 times
Reputation: 1231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurian View Post
THIS is evolution! This is survival of the fittest! The flies that can survive pesticides pass on their pesticide-resistant traits to their offspring, while the weak die off. I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.
it doesn't get any simpler than that.

1––natural selection is simply the ability of a better adapted system to survive its current environment. those that survive to mate, produce offspring. those that do not survive, because of adaptations that are not favored by the environment, will not reproduce.
Natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2––most of the offspring of the more suitably adapted animal is going to inherit the favorable adaptations, and will therefore be suitably adapted themselves to the environment.

3––the whole thing that sets this off to begin with is mutation. do creationists deny the existence of mutations? most of them that i have talked with do not.
Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a mutation is a change in the genetic code that is not inherently tied to the genetics of the parent organism. this means that it is fundamentally different than parent population, even if it is something as inconsequential as hair color.

an example is the genetic variance of asexually reproducing creatures. asexual reproduction means that the parent organism creates a clone of itself. barring other factors, it should be genetically identical to the parent. but the introduction of tiny irregularities, mutations, cause the offspring to have different traits (larger size, smaller size, different rate of metabolism, varying color patterns, etc).
Asexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4––evolution does not state that one creature produces offspring that have mutated so much that they are a different species, or even that the great, great, great, great, great grand-offspring of the mutated parent will be a different species.

evolution says that over the period of thousands to millions of years, a lineage might accrue enough mutations to have become sufficiently different that it can be classified as a new species.

5––creationists often argue that they agree with microevolution, but not macro. what they fail to realize is that there is no difference between the two. macro is merely the evolutionary history of a species in its entirety, whereas micro is the evolutionary history of a single population of the species.
Microevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

they both use the same mechanism. they both take the offspring of an organism, and subtly mutate it, and then mutate the offspring of that organism, and so on down the line, until eventually you have an organism that is so different from the original that scientists decide that it needs to be classified separately.

by agreeing with microevolution, you have already given your seal of approval to the entire process, up until the point that the taxonomists and systematicists step in and hold conferences and decide that organism Z needs to be classified separately from its ancestor, organism Y, because it has changed so much that it is functionally an independent, separate organism.

so what creationists are saying is that they agree that an organism can have 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 mutations, or even 3,000, because all of those are still usually within the range of the same species.

but once it gets into the really high numbers, the mechanism must simply shut off. no more mutations. no more subtle differences between the current generation and the founding organisms, because we have reached the threshold where science will now look suspiciously upon the new generation and declare it a new species.

which is really kind of amusing in and of itself considering the flexibility of the process of classifying and even defining species to begin with. if our definition of the word species were any different, than the creationists' threshold of acceptable mutations would be correspondingly different as well.
Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i will reiterate that most of the religious people that i am associated with that deny evolution, do so because it threatens their belief concerning the claims made in the bible (i might know some nonchristians that deny evolution, but i can't think of any off the top of my head). or rather, it threatens the biblical interpretations of whatever sect they belong to, because all of the thousands of different churches in the world today that believe in the bible, believe in it is a slightly different manner.

there is no universal conflict though.

i am a religious person myself; i believe that the bible is the word of God. there does not have to be a rift between science and religion, or evolution and the bible. some of us believe that God uses the miraculous laws of science that surround us in order to effect creation and to continue maintaining and safeguarding our existence on this tiny planet out in the middle of the immense cosmos.

aaron out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2009, 01:06 PM
Bub
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
236 posts, read 239,101 times
Reputation: 83
Although I believe in a method of evolution...I do want to caution you...SCIENCE HAS BEEN WRONG BEFORE...and IT WILL BE AGAIN.

Some of the foremost "arguments against God" scientists believe we were "dropped off" here by some aliens if not grown off the back of crystals.

NOTE: SOMEWHERE there is a stack of science books for sale that were re-written since PLUTO is no longer a planet. Brought to you in a time where it is illegal to exhale "used oxygen" and LEGAL to exhale Pot? No wonder I am confused.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2009, 01:07 PM
Bub
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
236 posts, read 239,101 times
Reputation: 83
Oh, I forgot to add...these are the same folks that shot some missiles at the moon during a recession...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:01 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top