U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:24 AM
 
32,402 posts, read 16,598,875 times
Reputation: 17428

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
Interestingly, the drop in procreation is steepest among the most intelligent , educated,and wealthy葉hat is, the people evolutionists claim are breeding.
That actually made me snort. Your ideas of what "evolutionists" think are seriously out of alignment with reality. The ToE is biology, it's not some sort of pseudo-sociology claptrap. I would ask for a published paper where a biologist claims that the most educated and wealthy breed at a higher rate, but we both know it doesn't exist, so why bother?

 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:25 AM
 
7,315 posts, read 5,536,388 times
Reputation: 2838
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid View Post
Evolution is biological history, mutation, and statistics.
Nothing. In fact, if we don't teach evolution (and other sciences), we'll continue down the road of being dumbed down compared with other advanced nations.
 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:26 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,277,459 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
Interestingly, the drop in procreation is steepest among the most intelligent , educated,and wealthy葉hat is, the people evolutionists claim should be breeding.
Please cite the papers and studies where Evolutionary Scientists are making this claim.
 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:28 AM
 
32,402 posts, read 16,598,875 times
Reputation: 17428
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
My bad.

I didn't explain it clearly enough. Easy to misunderstand my meaning.
So when you typed that "Darwin himself taught that they were intertwined", you didn't actually mean to claim that Darwin himself taught they were intertwined? That's good, because we both know (or should know) that he went to great lengths to argue the exact opposite.

One question, though: What did you mean?
 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:36 AM
 
7,315 posts, read 5,536,388 times
Reputation: 2838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Please cite the papers and studies where Evolutionary Scientists are making this claim.
Good luck with getting an answer to that.

See that's the problem with people who know nothing about evolution, but think they do because they make it all up and think what they made up is evolutionary science. lol
 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,087 posts, read 12,005,315 times
Reputation: 9714
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules
Interestingly, the drop in procreation is steepest among the most intelligent , educated,and wealthy葉hat is, the people evolutionists claim are breeding.
Well, naturally. They don't think babies are a "gift from God" and therefore continue to pump out litters. They don't buy into the BS that contraception is a "sin" and have more mouths than they could feed.
Evolutionists never claimed that it's the intelligent, educated and wealthy who are breeding. Please cite a source.
 
Old 03-22-2013, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,394 posts, read 28,226,906 times
Reputation: 28961
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
I think there is adequate evidentiary support to believe that variation and adaptation does occur within species, and so I do not argue against that point at all.
And how does that variation and adaptation occur? It happens due to mutations in genes. You cannot accept that variation and adaptation happen in a single species and completely ignore the mechanism behind it. Then you have to account for the genetic similarities between different species. That's where you fall back on "God did it." God is not necessary. Biochemistry tells us how it happens.
 
Old 03-22-2013, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,394 posts, read 28,226,906 times
Reputation: 28961
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
One place where evolutionism breaks down is in human reproduction. All through evolutionism runs the idea of maximizing reproduction. Women have big breasts to attract men so that they can make more babies. Men are big and strong so that they can get the women and make more or better babies. People cooperate in bands so they can stay alive and make more babies. On and on.

Yet now we have whole societies which by choice are not having babies. Japan, Italy, Spain, Russia, Germany and so on are breeding at below replacement. In Mexico the birth rate falls like a rock, even though nutrition has improved and health is better. The drop is easily explained in human terms. Why do you, the reader, not want fifteen children? The same answers apply in Mexico as in the United States.

Interestingly, the drop in procreation is steepest among the most intelligent , educated,and wealthy葉hat is, the people evolutionists claim should be breeding. There is no evolutionary explanation. When I ask, I encounter silence or vague mumblings about how there must be some mutation or, well, something.

Scientific inquiry is separated from ideological rigidity by a willingness to entertain questions and admit doubt. The giveaway of ideology is emotional hostility to skeptics. That's what we get from evolutioinsts.
Um, maximizing reproduction does not always improve fitness to survive. If there are too many mouths to feed with available resources, quite the contrary. Imagine a herd of grazing animals in an enclosed valley with forage that is perfect for them. They are well fed and healthy and they multiply rapidly. Some are killed by predators, so the size of the herd stays pretty much constant.

Remove the predators. The size of the herd increases to the point that the forage plants do not have time to recover. Eventually, the entire herd dies because there is no more food.

The optimum population is not necessarily the largest, and nothing in the Theory of evolution implies that.
 
Old 03-22-2013, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Michigan
2,198 posts, read 2,243,334 times
Reputation: 2091
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
I'm fully aware of that, and I'm perplexed as to why you think this has any relevance to the claim that the nucleus of a cell is it's source of control. Now, if you are insinuating that DNA is the controller, irrespective of it being located within a nucleus, or simply floating about inside the cell, then say so... don't beat around the bush.

If that is what you are insinuating, I would like to hear how DNA triggers it's own gene expression without outside chemical signals, which is the current understanding of how DNA works. And just so no one thinks that this is simply my opinion about how DNA or the Nucleus cannot be the brain of the cell, this is the answer provided to an 8th grade science teacher by a scientist at the Department of Energy at the Newton "ask a scientist" website ...
In eukaryote cells the nucleus houses nearly all of the genetic information for protein synthesis. In prokaryote cells this information is mostly housed in the nucleolus. In red blood cells, they contain no nucleus or nucleolus and therefor was believed that they have no ability for protein synthesis, although new research suggests they may have limited ability to do so. The genetic information for protein synthesis does not have to be stored in the nucleus of a cell, that's just where it is mostly stored in eukaryote cells.

Quote:
In contrast, according to recent data, there is a strong evidence that anucleate platelets contain a functional spliceosome 14, mRNAs 15, rRNA, rough endoplasmic reticulum and polyribosomes, as well as numerous translation factors including 3'-UTR RNA- and poly(A)-binding protein 16. It is therefore believed that platelets maintain functionally intact protein translational capabilities accompanied by posttranslational modifications 17.
I'm not sure what the problem is here, or how this relates to evolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
If red blood cells have no DNA, how do they know how to function?

ANSWER: I think there might be some confusion about the role DNA plays in a cell. DNA does not tell a cell how to function -- it's not like a brain or control center that directs actions. DNA is more like a blue-print. Components of the cell refer to the information coded in DNA to make new proteins, but many other activities of the cell don't require DNA. Converting sugars to energy, for instance, doesn't require DNA, assuming the rest of the machinery is already in place. If you remove the DNA from a cell, it can continue to live for some time. Without DNA, it can't make new proteins and can't reproduce -- so its life span is very limited -- but a cell can live without DNA. Red blood cells are a prime example. If you get the right parts together, they will operate on their own.
He is correct, DNA is a blueprint. Once everything has been synthesized from the blueprint, the cell can live and carryout functions for a little while before it dies. Cell functions are chemical reactions, they don't require a "brain." They are simple reactions involving enzymes, hormones, chemical messengers, feedback loops, etc. Calling the nucleus "the brain of a cell" is a dumb analogy sure, but I'm not sure where you're going with this other than it being a poor analogy that's dumbed down for children.

Mammalian red blood cells only live about 3-4 months after being enucleated because they have limited ability to repair themselves, as opposed to other cells in the body that can live for decades and decades and possibly indefinitely.

Red blood cells don't need a "brain" or "command center" to do their function. Binding and releasing oxygen are chemical reactions.

Quote:
The oxygen binding properties of hemoglobin exist because of the interaction between oxygen and the iron atom of the heme groups and hemoglobin's quaternary structure. However, the ability of hemoglobin to pick up or release oxygen also depends on the pO2, the partial pressure of the oxygen in its environment. When the partial pressure of the oxygen(pO2) is high, as it is in the capillaries around the lung, each molecule of hemoglobin can carry its maximum load of four oxygen molecules. As the blood circulates around the body, the blood experiences lower levels of partial pressure. At these low levels of pO2, the hemoglobin releases some of the oxygen it is carrying. See graph below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
This is the typical case of "Heads you win, tails I lose". It seems to be one of the favorite games you people like to play.



Quote:
But what is surprising is how this is so much like a child, face covered in chocolate, lid off the cookie jar, and a pile of crumbs at his feet, claiming no knowledge of who the cookie thief could be. Of course, we skeptics understand that by necessity, you are compelled to add the backwards and sideways elements of evolution along with the forward, because these backwards and sideways movements are the only evidence of changes that exist. It's the lack of evidence of that forward movement, resulting in a transition to a new species which is at the center of the debate ... so let's try to be honest for a moment, and set aside this irrelevant philosophical hubbub about the arbitrary nature of defining superior and inferior, and save it for the next episode of dancing with the stars, because I've not made a single inference to such a judgement. My claims have been constrained to the matter of complexity, which makes no such distinction regarding a superior or inferior form.
You created a straw man and then argued against. Then when I pointed out that your augment is a straw man and is not a tenet of evolution, you respond with some bizarre rambling about a child with his hand in the cookie jar and Dancing With the Stars?

There are a ton of examples of transitions to new species, what are you talking about?



Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
The fundamental absence of ONE piece of evidence that shows ONE SINGLE genetic mutation as adding additional information to the genome of an organism is really the heart of the matter. And that would be required to provide added complexity, to include the most basic insinuation that it all started out as a random mixing of inorganic elements which formed the first biologically living cell, which then mutated over and over again to result in more complex, multicellular life forms from that single cell organism, which had no nucleus (bacteria), then successive mutations over vast amounts of time resulted in Billions of different and extremely more complex life forms.
Quote:
The list of examples could go on and on, but consider this. Most mutations can be reversed by subsequent mutations - a DNA base can be turned from an A to a G and then back to an A again, for instance. In fact, reverse mutation or "reversion" is common. For any mutation that results in a loss of information, logically, the reverse mutation must result in its gain. So the claim that mutations destroy information but cannot create it not only defies the evidence, it also defies logic.
Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Of course, if you assume that evolution is already the answer right from the beginning, that makes it far easier to pinpoint and dismiss evidence contrary to that theory, as you evolutionists have become so expert at doing.
The irony here is simply mind boggling. Creationists are experts at delusion and ignoring evidence. They have no equal short of flat earth believers.

Last edited by EugeneOnegin; 03-22-2013 at 12:28 PM..
 
Old 03-22-2013, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,124 posts, read 22,019,148 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua View Post
Nothing. In fact, if we don't teach evolution (and other sciences), we'll continue down the road of being dumbed down compared with other advanced nations.
"There is a way the seems right unto men, but it ends in death"

- Proverbs 14:12

"Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles"

- Romans 1:22-23

Last edited by Harrier; 03-22-2013 at 12:34 PM..
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

ゥ 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top