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.
Because the ones I choose to post are backed by scientific evidence...Yours are not.
Nothing wrong with a Youtube video that can be backed up by research and evidence...You certainly cannot pick them willy nilly, and that goes for anything found on the web or in print..Unlike evolution there is no proof of the existence of God, or aliens.
You are wrong....For one thing there is no evidence of God, strong or otherwise..Why do I have to keep repeating myself to you?
I'll say it again...Nothing wrong with a Youtube video that can be backed up by research and evidence...
you can say whatever you want, your just not getting it.
i can have a scientist in front of you and i can have him perform one of the many scientific evidences in the existence of god. but that wont change your mind. so why bother? o, right, your videos that you pick are backed by scientific research and evidence but not one of the ones that proof god are backed by scientific evidence and research... i forget for a second that your always right and cant be proven wrong... you'll believe what you want to believe. you say theres no evidence of god i think you just ignore it, i say theres no evidence of evolution, and yes i just ignore it. theres too many questions in evolution that dont make sense to me personally to believe otherwise. people say, we are taught religion... true, but people are also taught about evolution... it goes both ways and honestly its up to god whom he wills to guide.
I believe in evolution and G-d. Many people who understand evolution also believe in G-d.
but thats playing both sides. believing in a god of creation and then believing in evolution... im not saying this to be rude or anything but unless you believe in some sort of evolutionary time god that given enough time can accomplish anything, thats a different god than the one that i believe in. but what would you think personally would be the reason that god created us to evolve, rather than god creating us perfectly the way we are?...
I believed in evolution much more BEFORE becoming a biology major.
I still believe that evolution is something that does occur in life. But, the fact is evolution falls for short of explaining as much as people might think.
Evolution is supposedly based on beneficial mutations in DNA (99.9% of which are harmful) which create a mutation (usually too minute to matter) that is expressed in an organism. At the same time, some natural occurrence must (just so happen to) occur that when combined with the minuscule mutation makes that individual significantly more fit.
WRONG.Provably so. A miniscule mutation certainly does not have to make that individual "significantly" more fit. In fact, it may make no difference at all. Some visible or functional mutations only occur when other "facilitating mutations" first occur.
This is the cause of "cascading mutations" when one happens that suddenly allows a previously benign and "lurking" option to finally express itself. And even that change can be something as simple as now allowing an organism to see a bit better in the evening low light, or to digest a previously indigestible substrate item. (Too long for you, sukrill? Sorry.)
Its' a typical argument from exaggeration to suggest the old "cat giving birth to a dog overnight" line of irrational anti-evolution argument. It simply does not happen that way, and you probably know it, but prefer the more audacious arguments for shock effect. Sorry; no sale.
The biggest problem with this theory is in the question of how DNA which is a highly complex information system came to be.
DNA's origins, while an interesting question, has, per se, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how Evolution works. The fact that you express this as an objection ot Evolution indicates perhaps you didn't pay very close attention during those biology/genetics/ecology classes..
DNA is a string of nucleotides and there is no way one string can be more "fit" than another. So, DNA itself couldn't have evolved and in order to argue that it did one MUST employ a circular argument (because evolution is based on DNA mutation).
Plus, a virtual biological factory of about 50 mechanisms is required for decoding DNA and synthesizing protein structures. If you study this process in depth (which I have done in agonizing detail), one can only conclude that evolution can not explain the existence of this system. To do so would require circular reasoning.
Still does not deny that DNA, tRNa and other mechanisms do, in fact, participate and generate functioning variations within existing species, leading to new ones with different genomes. Since the definition of "species" is perhaps most accurately:
"A purely hominid "definition of convenience"; a "snap-shot" transitory locus of the ongoing testing for "fit", and subsequent transitional states of an organism's genome due to environmental factors. Such changes may be reversed or enhanced, short-lived or long, dependent entirely on the reaction of the genome to the environment."
Notice it neither said nor claimed anything about the origins of the DNA molecule, which would, logically, be another thread. Q: Why don'cha start one? We'll follow you there. But this one's about "evolution" and if you believe in it.
Now some might argue that this highly complex system just occurred randomly. That would be like putting a million Scrabble pieces in a huge can, shaking them up and dumping them out enough times until the pieces formed "War and Peace."
Ahhhhh yes; the old "tornado creating a 747 over a junk yard" gambit, huh? Facetious and spurious on it's face, and illogical if considered in earnest. But sukril doesn't like me to talk too much, so I"ll leave it at that. Sorry.
If anyone can explain how protein synthesis and DNA pre-evolved I'd like to hear the explanation.
Why don't you do a bit of research and check on those British scientists who have created some DNA from amino acids, which in turn they created from some AA precursors? The publication should be out in a few months in Nature I believe. But the larger question is: will you even believe it then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sukrill
i know you really enjoy hearing yourself talk, you do realize that just because a person believes what they believe doesnt mean theyre not "open-minded and naturally curious adults actually enjoy the fact that the scope of our accumulated knowledge grows with each hour", thats where your being close minded isnt it?
Hardly. I just go into detail after the types of spurious and irrational arguments that theists continue to present, even when they have been completely dis-proven, or where the link has been clearly shown to have been mis-quoted, or deviously quote-mined, or an argument to deflect has been given. Always instead of a straightforward answer.
So I often have to explain it, and that takes time. But OK: I'll try to be more "Tweet" complaint, sukrill, if it helps you understand it better. I'll just say things like:
"That's utter BS!" and be done with it. OK?
by saying o if theyre "the average Christian (and Muslim) acolyte" that they all "want it to stop?"
Well, when the shoe fits...
talk about being close minded... and your the one always being rude to people whom you dont even know. you just dont like christians and muslims.
Wrong again! Wow! Actually, I just don't like the types who hang out here Moderator cut: deleted reference , or dismiss honest scientists and their diligent lifetime's work (check out the number of times various Christians have claimed that scientists are just biased, dishonest and closed-minded.) That hits me right on the old noggin, because, hey: guess what my professional career has been devoted to?
Tell yah what, sukrill: you tell me what you do professionally, and then I'll make up some really nasty insults about it. Then we can see if you can just sit there and smile back. OK? So: What do you do?
Meantime, don't assume so much about who or what I like. It'll just get you in trouble with the Truth Police!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sukrill
you can believe your an ape all you want... that doesnt mean im going to. it doesnt mean im ignorant either. we are much more capable of doing many more things than an ape can. but believe what you want to believe im ok not believing that.
"Capability" has nothing to do with our evolutionary ancestors. In fact, we have evolved to a higher level, but they remain in their niche precisely because they fit it so well, even today. We were simply able to explore other opportunities, mostly because of our higher intellect (a direct result of a biologically and biochemically more vigorous and adept brain, nothing more) coupled with our enhanced bipedal gait, opposed thumb and toe morphology.
As well, in my career as a (gasp!) field biologist, I saw wild animals do many things significantly better than you or I could ever hope to. So in effect, it's you who is arrogant and short-sighted, frankly. The typical put-down, self-aggrandizing"and man shall have dominion over the lesser beasts" sheisse.
It's too arrogant to say we're "better" because god made us to be better. That vast and persistent religious arrogance makes me... well; I'll stop now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier
You are ignorant of the concept of humans being classified as apes.
You can say that again, AG.
Most people think of apes as the knuckle dragging quadripedal, but this is the layman's definition. Humans fit the scientific definition of apes: any member of the Hominoidea superfamily. There are several varieties within the Hominoidea taxon: Facts About Ape - Interesting & Amazing Information On Apes
Let's not confuse sukrill with facts about documented genetic lineage. Oh and remember: keep it short.
Meantime, I'm going over to my wife's church to help with the music program she's developing. A bunch of nice folks all!
but thats playing both sides. believing in a god of creation and then believing in evolution... im not saying this to be rude or anything but unless you believe in some sort of evolutionary time god that given enough time can accomplish anything, thats a different god than the one that i believe in. but what would you think personally would be the reason that god created us to evolve, rather than god creating us perfectly the way we are?...
No, its not. I don't believe in the literal creation in the bible. I believe the earth is very old. There were dinosaurs and they did not live with humans.
you can say whatever you want, your just not getting it.
i can have a scientist in front of you and i can have him perform one of the many scientific evidences in the existence of god. but that wont change your mind. so why bother? o, right, your videos that you pick are backed by scientific research and evidence but not one of the ones that proof god are backed by scientific evidence and research... i forget for a second that your always right and cant be proven wrong... you'll believe what you want to believe. you say theres no evidence of god i think you just ignore it, i say theres no evidence of evolution, and yes i just ignore it. theres too many questions in evolution that dont make sense to me personally to believe otherwise. people say, we are taught religion... true, but people are also taught about evolution... it goes both ways and honestly its up to god whom he wills to guide.
You keep claiming that you have valid evidence of the existence of God, you would be the first, so bring it on, I have yet to see any myself...
People are taught the evidence and findings of science regarding evolution...Where does the teaching of God come from? An old unverifiable book...You loose...
but thats playing both sides. believing in a god of creation and then believing in evolution... im not saying this to be rude or anything but unless you believe in some sort of evolutionary time god that given enough time can accomplish anything, thats a different god than the one that i believe in. but what would you think personally would be the reason that god created us to evolve, rather than god creating us perfectly the way we are?...
Really?
Consider John 15:
[1]"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.
[2]He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit,
while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that
it will be even more fruitful. "
ya when a single elephant does it its a trick. maybe a tricks not the right word but what does that mean, according to evolution the babies of that elephant should then begin painting too then huh?
because it was a general statement. i meant, because you obvioulsy couldnt comprehend what i was saying, is that elephants dont build building, they dont create any sort of technology, etc. more complicated things than the obvious.
Sorry but you fails to comprehend this subject. What we can do is only and extension of what evolution has already produce in other species.
Under the right conditions, things we do, animals also do. Only when there is a surplus of food, do we see humans doing what we take for granted today.
The termite that makes building more complicated, then most human buildings up until 100 years ago. Elephants paint pictures, chimps make tools and apparently count better then humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sukrill
ya when a single elephant does it its a trick. maybe a tricks not the right word but what does that mean, according to evolution the babies of that elephant should then begin painting too then huh? then we'll have a bunch of elephants one day that can paint! awesome! that doesnt sound imaginary at all!... incapable of reasoning... ya right...
Just because you make up rules and claim they are about evolution, doesn't make it so, my ignorant creationist.
Elephants have obviously had the capability to paint for a long time, they just need the right conditions. JUST LIKE OUR ANCESTORS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sukrill
o so your like sanspuer now? playing both sides? i never claimed there was no god but i never said there is one either... <- put words in my mouth much. okkk... and the god "i believe" cant exist? you mean the same god you do and dont believe in? how many gods do you think there are? because i just believe in one. and im almost sure you believe in only one too... or maybe you dont.. idk...
This isn't playing both sides, it is the HONEST side. I'm betting there are powerful beings out there, worthy of being called gods, but the made up being written in human scriptures are obviously false.
But that is another matter. If you want me to tear your dogmatic beliefs apart, start another thread, this one is about the theory of evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sukrill
really good "facts"i never said we arent mammals, or that were not vertebrates, i just said were not apes. theres many mammals with vertebrate. its silly for me not to believe we came from apes, but its a fact that all mammals and vertebrates came from apes?... thats factual to you?... all the monkeys and chimps, etc, came from a single ape like creature? hmmm... why would they need to change if theyre fine just the way the are?... to get better... o right, because elephants need to one day be artist and paint because its only necessary to save the entire species... sure...
You fail to understand, saying we are not apes, because you dislike the connection to other animals, is saying we are not mammals, or not vertebrates. Hey, both these categories still linking us with apes. Oh wait, we are apes
Nope, that is not what evolution says. Evolution describes how animals change over time. DNA and other evidence shows that monkeys and apes (which technically under the same category as reptiles, because the old classification, that you know fails big time) all have a common ancestor.
You say we are perfect, I disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sukrill
i really dont know why i even responded because i already know what your going to say, something along the lines of the elephant painting deal was just an example of what they are capable of... possibly that they will do more in the future... and im sure beached whales are planning a multi-million generational plan to one day walk on land... your theories to me, do not make sense, they just dont add up. can i say your wrong? no, can i say your right? no, but i can definately say that you believe something totally different than i do. and thats fact.
You show your ignorance when you try to express you delusional idea of the theory of evolution.
Evolution is not a ladder, but a change in the genetic code, combine with natural selection to improve the species chances to survive long enough to reproduce.
Whales ancestors once walked on land, and genetic changes combined with natural selection help them hunt better in the oceans, thus surviving long enough to reproduce. Walking IS NOT the goal of natural selection.
Your crude and child like understanding of the creationist version of evolution should embarrassed you. But for some crazy reason, you seem to want to wear it like a badge.
That may be, although it's certainly not the only possibility of what a fiction writer could be doing. In any event, you had asked if it's "made up", and that's what I was answering. "Yes, it's made up, it's really just a bunch of nonsense". I can't guarantee that Koontz didn't hear it from someone else--fiction writers tend to snatch ideas from wherever they encounter them, but even if that's the case, whoever he heard it from was just as much creating a scientifically nonsensical fiction.
I believed in evolution much more BEFORE becoming a biology major.
I still believe that evolution is something that does occur in life. But, the fact is evolution falls for short of explaining as much as people might think.
Evolution is supposedly based on beneficial mutations in DNA (99.9% of which are harmful) which create a mutation (usually too minute to matter) that is expressed in an organism. At the same time, some natural occurrence must (just so happen to) occur that when combined with the minuscule mutation makes that individual significantly more fit.
The biggest problem with this theory is in the question of how DNA which is a highly complex information system came to be. DNA is a string of nucleotides and there is no way one string can be more "fit" than another. So, DNA itself couldn't have evolved and in order to argue that it did one MUST employ a circular argument (because evolution is based on DNA mutation).
Plus, a virtual biological factory of about 50 mechanisms is required for decoding DNA and synthesizing protein structures. If you study this process in depth (which I have done in agonizing detail), one can only conclude that evolution can not explain the existence of this system. To do so would require circular reasoning.
Now some might argue that this highly complex system just occurred randomly. That would be like putting a million Scrabble pieces in a huge can, shaking them up and dumping them out enough times until the pieces formed "War and Peace."
If anyone can explain how protein synthesis and DNA pre-evolved I'd like to hear the explanation.
Maybe biology majors should be required to take classes in critical thinking, formal and informal logic, rhetoric (as in the art of argumentation), etc.
I'm not going to list every problem in your comment--that's too much work, but here are a few:
* Re DNA first occurring, you're conflating (and maybe trying to intentionally blur) biological evolution with gradual changes that are not biological evolution. Surely you're not denying that gradual changes occur in other types of systems? Also, are you completely unfamiliar with the literature re abiogenesis? That would seem odd to me for someone with a biology degree who is interested in evolution.
* The phrase "one can only conclude" doesn't sound to me like something that someone with an education in science methodology would be (or at least should be) uttering.
* The comment that there is no way that one strand of DNA can be more "fit" than another sounds like you do not even get the idea of genes. Genes determine the properties of an organism. The way that one type of DNA strand is more fit than another is via that strand resulting in an organism with properties more suited to its environment, to enable survival for procreation, so that the relevant genes can be passed on.
* Anyone with an education in science tends to believe that very little occurs randomly. Many doubt there are any random events, but even if that's not the case, events that are typical candidates for random phenomena are few and far between, and tend to be limited to classes of quantum phenomena--macro-level phenomena tend to be excluded because of decoherence. Positing that folks might believe, in a scientific context, that events occur randomly doesn't sound like one is very familiar with many of the basic theoretical underpinnings of science.
* Making an argument based on odds for which we have no way to really assess is a problem. Admittedly, that is done to often by persons with an education in science . . . part of my dispute with them is based on different approaches to probability. I'm a frequentist. I'm not a fan of Bayesian probability in general, at least not beyond any practical applications of it just in case they've turned out to have utility.
So, did you actually receive a biology degree? From what school if so?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"It's all just B$!" There. That was easy!
