U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [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: 
 
Old 04-29-2010, 07:05 AM
 
4,642 posts, read 3,303,299 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
I am just asking for an example of a man made species which is supposed to be achieved by using the theory or evolution, i.e., by contrving in the laboratory a constructive chance mutation of DNA, and getting nature or you yourself to get it into a state of survival or permanency, because it is the fittest, most capable, most favored by nature to hold out, as a new species.
SpringerLink - Journal Article.

"The use of ionizing radiation, such as X-rays, gamma rays and neutrons and chemical mutagens for inducing variation, is well established. Induced mutations have been used to improve major crops such as wheat, rice, barley,cotton, peanuts, and beans, which are seed propagated. Since the establishment of the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of the Nuclear Techniques in Agriculture, more than 1800 cultivars obtained either as direct mutants or derived from their crosses have been released worldwide in 50 countries."

This was the first result I found, there are thousands more if you acutally want to learn about this sort of thing.

Quote:
Next, I am just giving you notice that your theory of evolution consisting in chance mutation and natural selection in fact posits what I can see to be nothing else than protected evolution.
What does protected evolution mean in this context? I get the feeling you think you're objecting to something here but I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Quote:
Wherefore you assume that there is an agent in charge of the whole procedure, otherwise as something destined to be a new species from an extant species by chance mutation, it can also as likely be destroyed by destructive chance mutation, and never ever gets to continue further as to be favored by [sic] natural selection.
Where do you get the idea that there is "destiny" involved in evolution?

Anyway, the idea that not all beneficial mutations will become fixed in the population has been known since at least the 1920s - Haldane is generally cited as being the first to publish a rigorous investigation of this effect. There's been a lot of work in the subsequent 80-90 years since then. Do you have a particular question in mind here or are you just looking for a general overview. For the latter, google "beneficial mutations fixation probability".

As an aside, it's interesting how no creationist site show up when you use the correct scientific terms.

Quote:
And no amount of textbook learning is going to hoodwink anyone with a good working brain to not see the unfavorable circumstances prevailing in raw nature, that surround any chance mutation as to prevent it to safely reach at all the gratuitously favorable natural selection.
Yes, we should ignore all of the research that shows how nature works and instead take your gut feeling that tens of thousands of experts in the field are wrong.

Last edited by KCfromNC; 04-29-2010 at 07:16 AM..

 
Old 04-29-2010, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Houston?
19 posts, read 20,670 times
Reputation: 13

YouTube - Lewis Black - The Devil's Handiwork
 
Old 04-29-2010, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 6,274,157 times
Reputation: 3617
Question Why do I bother?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
I am just asking for an example of a man made species which is supposed to be achieved by using the theory or evolution, i.e., by contrving in the laboratory a constructive chance mutation of DNA, and getting nature or you yourself to get it into a state of survival or permanency, because it is the fittest, most capable, most favored by nature to hold out, as a new species.

Direct and Specific Answer: the most recent, and compelling, is that of my oft-quoted favorite, Dr. Richard Lenski, whose work is easily Googled, and I and others have provided a link so many times.....

In essence, Richard started with several familes of e.coli, each identifiable by unique characteristic. More importantly, he started about 24 years ago and ran his experiment of simply letting them reproduce, and he kept samples of each generation's DNA, properly handled, in his freezer.

Fast-forward to a tool he could not have anticipated, but which surely provided him, and us, with an amazing analytical tool: DNA genome mapping.

What Dr. Lenski found, even without DNA mapping, is that one of these generations suddenly became able to digest a substrate component that the species e. coli was, by definition, unable to digest. While you might dispute this purely for purposes of arguing it, so what? Often, "species" are defined by their ability to utilize a particular food item, to exist within a unique niche, to change in a manner that allows it to occupy a new niche opportunity. So, what we now had here was so simply: speciation by chance mutation.

This was amidst many lethal gene mutations, though even in simple bacteria there are correction genes, means by which our systems are less susceptible to chance damage. A sort of check-stage during DNA replication.

but then, Dr. Lenski was able to map, read and compare each generation's DNA. Guess what he found? I'll let you look it up and read it if you dare.

Essentially, Lenski's lab work shows that a completely chance mutation can lead to an all-new species. A functionally distinct species. Now, to speed this up, all that's necessary is to increase a naturally occurring background radiation level (gamma, X-rays, etc.) and in fact, as was noted above, this has been established as a functional means of providing new agricultural products, or of protecting existing ones from ever-evolving viruses or harmful bacteria.

Next, I am just giving you notice that your theory of evolution consisting in chance mutation and natural selection in fact posits what I can see to be nothing else than protected evolution.

Huh? I don't get your statement. You're putting me "on notice"? How exactly? What's this new hypothesis of "protected evolution"? I Googled your name along with any related and peer-reviewed journal publications. Nada.

Wherefore you assume that there is an agent in charge of the whole procedure, otherwise as something destined to be a new species from an extant species by chance mutation, it can also as likely be destroyed by destructive chance mutation, and never ever gets to continue further as to be favored by [sic] natural selection.

1) I "assume" no such thing as "an agent". In fact, I attribute it to chance alone, totally absent any "change agent" directing it. That's the Intelligent Design fairy=tale. 2) Yes, new versions of an organisms can be, and usually are, lost to lethality of a chance mutation. But given that there are in fact occasional winners in any Lottery, and that the basic system of DNA-based organisms does, by it's layout, provide for opportunistic changes and the chance to test every change against the existing environment.

Remember now: a State Lottery picks one or three winners every two weeks or once a month. Or less. Now, compare that very low frequency of "testing" to literally hundreds of billions of cellular reproductions globally each and every minute. all immediately survival-tested against it's ecosystem and likely failing. Except when they offer a very real survival advantage, however slight.

Konraden, I believe, noted that there's an average of 175 detectable gene mutations in each new human generation. We've also found actual species-wide changes within the human genome, and we've barely started looking in detail at that aspect. tooth spacing, brain-case size, reduction in jaw dimensions, digestive enzyme variations. Just you wait, Ryrge....

And no amount of textbook learning is going to hoodwink anyone with a good working brain to not see the unfavorable circumstances prevailing in raw nature, that surround any chance mutation as to prevent it to safely reach at all the gratuitously favorable natural selection.

No, but when someone comes on these pages and makes statements that clearly show they have not a clue as to how established things function, or that they have willingly abandoned even basic logic, and have no understanding of, say, simple statistics, basic biochemistry or chance/chaos theory, what can we conclude?

You must have some basic readings in any topic to pretend to debate it at any level. how's about I start in on the bible, making absurd statements like: Of course, God told Moses that he'd have to feed his people with a good Gran Marnier souffle while out on the desert!"

"What!" you'd cry. "Where does it say that?" you'd insist. Then I come back and insist: "Well, why wouldn't He say that? I think He'd have to have said that, because after all, desert travelers always yearn for souffles! We all know that, silly!" And so on.

Absurd? Yep, but so are many of your "determinations", totally absent any basis in documented facts. As well, you are obviously intent of changing our definitions to suit your hoped-for version. No way, buddy. You might like that, but it ain't gonna sell to the working scientific professionals in the world.

Who, BTW have absolutely no time to come here and bother to explain these most basic and proven theories to the totally uneducated, who also have no real interest in learning anything new.


It is all fantastic, like magic.

Wistful thinking. Ryrge
So. You only seem to be asking for answers, but by your specific statements right here, you've already made your mind up. Thus I return to my previously stated opinion: there's no point in arguing with the Intransigent Dogmo-Theist; the IDTr!

Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
SpringerLink - Journal Article.

Good link, KC! but I doubt he'll read it other than to dismiss it with add-on but incorrect definitions and faulty logical conclusions. Absent that, there's always a quick trip to Answers in Genesis or The Creationist websites for their insightful take and excuses.

I get the feeling you think you're objecting to something here but I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Yes, an interesting debating strategy no doubt!


Where do you get the idea that there is "destiny" involved in evolution?

Answer: he subscribes to the late-comer desperate apologist concept of Intelligent Design, which is so easily dismissed. But of course many children prefer to remain loyal to the concept of an Easter Bunny as well. There may, in fact, be such a benevolent beast, but all research shows not.

As an aside, it's interesting how no creationist site show up when you use the correct scientific terms.

Good point, KC. After all, no intellectually honest professional is going to put his or her name behind outright biased pronouncements which are made without any backup, documentation, reproduceability or peer-review. on that basis, an article written by Barney the Purple Dinosaur has equal credibility.


Yes, we should ignore all of the research that shows how nature works and instead take your gut feeling that tens of thousands of experts in the field are wrong.
"Gut feelings" also include bad cases of intestinal gas, no?
 
Old 04-29-2010, 03:57 PM
 
608 posts, read 276,935 times
Reputation: 30
So many words...

Not convincing.



Just tell me what is the new species of life that is still alive and multiplying at this very moment, produced in the laboratory, and you need not bring in so many aspiring authorities and their so many efforts, specially with so many props and words, etc.



You mention that nature has produced beneficial mutations which are then or which then nature also favorably selects to survive, etc. etc. etc.


Then that is not chance mutation, that is protected mutation, etc. etc. etc.


In which case you are saying that there is an agency involved which is in charge of protecting the chance mutation which happens to be favorable for nature to select unto ultimate survival and voilà a new species of life.



Why not just say that the theory of evolution is founded upon the peculiar mechanism of nature by which nature favors the mutation that nature by its peculiar mechanism can filter out to to possessed of features on which it can survive and become a new species.


That is what exactly proponents of the theory of evolution are telling themselves but in very vagarious language just to not have to tread on ideas and principles they are allergic to.



What ideas and what principles?

Start with the idea of order in nature and the principle that nature is a productive entity.

Sounds familar? think "God does not play dice with the universe."



Okay, that means there is God in nature.




Ryrge
 
Old 04-29-2010, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Planet Water
815 posts, read 767,043 times
Reputation: 192
After viewing of video I had an assumption. That animals evolved to level of "Gods" earlier than a monkey. And the destroyed remains
Egypt and the South America is a civilisation of animals. " Gods " to destroy the opponents of - other "Gods". "Winners were to people in a kind of"Pangolin"- Jahve, on an example. Approximately so.
There are two types of people: From a monkey (or) (cloned).
And born by : (God - father) . Because there are mysterious examples of a finding of people in coffins under a coal layer.

Last edited by eloy; 04-29-2010 at 04:41 PM..
 
Old 04-29-2010, 04:45 PM
 
Location: NZ Wellington
2,782 posts, read 2,278,588 times
Reputation: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
Why not just say that the theory of evolution is founded upon the peculiar mechanism of nature by which nature favors the mutation that nature by its peculiar mechanism can filter out to to possessed of features on which it can survive and become a new species.


That is what exactly proponents of the theory of evolution are telling themselves but in very vagarious language just to not have to tread on ideas and principles they are allergic to.
Because that is the incomplete theory of evolution they teach in high school. The theory of evolution is an enormous subject.

The main mechanism, natural selection, and decent with modification is taught in high school..


YouTube - 'Intelligent' droplet
 
Old 04-30-2010, 04:07 PM
 
608 posts, read 276,935 times
Reputation: 30
Don't they call it the theory of the origin of species, as though they are talking at all about the point in time when there were no species whatever, then things started moving by chance and by [sic] selection of nature and voilà species appear.

No, that is about abiogenesis which is supposed to be a new theory distinctly different from what ancient thinkers called spontaneous generation, something like that for an explanation of the origin of life and varieties of life forms.

Hahahaha!

That is what I would call non-truth in advertising.


So also with C. Darwin putting as the title of his huge non-dissertation, on the origin of species, and when you search all over his work, he never ever once talks about any point in time when there were no species at all, but always about how similarities to the eye of man the observer in examples of species among themselves already extant are supposed to be evidence of the origin of species, when the word origin means that prior to the point of origin there were no such things whose origin is still being confected by what, chance and of course selection of nature in regard to the species of life forms.

A pure example of what as I said non-truth in advertising.




Ryrge
 
Old 04-30-2010, 05:03 PM
 
Location: Lethbridge, AB
1,132 posts, read 827,444 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
Don't they call it the theory of the origin of species, as though they are talking at all about the point in time when there were no species whatever, then things started moving by chance and by [sic] selection of nature and voilà species appear.

No, that is about abiogenesis which is supposed to be a new theory distinctly different from what ancient thinkers called spontaneous generation, something like that for an explanation of the origin of life and varieties of life forms.

Hahahaha!

That is what I would call non-truth in advertising.


So also with C. Darwin putting as the title of his huge non-dissertation, on the origin of species, and when you search all over his work, he never ever once talks about any point in time when there were no species at all, but always about how similarities to the eye of man the observer in examples of species among themselves already extant are supposed to be evidence of the origin of species, when the word origin means that prior to the point of origin there were no such things whose origin is still being confected by what, chance and of course selection of nature in regard to the species of life forms.

A pure example of what as I said non-truth in advertising.




Ryrge

or·i·gin   /ˈɔrɪdʒɪn, ˈɒr-/ Show Spel


–noun1.something from which anything arises or is derived; source; fountainhead: to follow a stream to its origin.

2.rise or derivation from a particular source: the origin of a word.

3.the first stage of existence; beginning: the origin of Quakerism in America.

4.ancestry; parentage; extraction: to be of Scottish origin.



Origin of the species is a picture perfect use of definition 4. Even definitions 1 and 2 don't fit badly. So, your argument fails spectacularly.

Maybe check the dictionary before you claim a word is misused.
 
Old 04-30-2010, 06:00 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
24,021 posts, read 16,655,081 times
Reputation: 9613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
Don't they call it the theory of the origin of species, as though they are talking at all about the point in time when there were no species whatever, then things started moving by chance and by [sic] selection of nature and voilà species appear.
Origin of species in evolution is an explanation of how one species evolves from a previous species...Not an inference that there were no previous species. The process is still going on today, and newly evolved species are being discovered regularly.

Quote:
No, that is about abiogenesis which is supposed to be a new theory distinctly different from what ancient thinkers called spontaneous generation, something like that for an explanation of the origin of life and varieties of life forms.
Perhaps you should read more carefully, if that is your perception...It is NOT about abiogenesis at all, as I explained above.

Quote:
That is what I would call non-truth in advertising.
No it is what I call a lack or reading comprehension on your part.

Quote:
So also with C. Darwin putting as the title of his huge non-dissertation, on the origin of species, and when you search all over his work, he never ever once talks about any point in time when there were no species at all, but always about how similarities to the eye of man the observer in examples of species among themselves already extant are supposed to be evidence of the origin of species, when the word origin means that prior to the point of origin there were no such things whose origin is still being confected by what, chance and of course selection of nature in regard to the species of life forms.

A pure example of what as I said non-truth in advertising.
See above re-, reading comprehension. You really should understand what Darwin and the theory of evolution says before commenting on it. Otherwise you will be dining on a lot of crow.

In any case Darwin was one of the originators of the hypothesis of evolution, which has long been graduated to scientific theory...He died in 1882 over a century ago, and much has been discovered and confirmed since he wrote his book, but amazingly he was correct in almost everything he wrote.
 
Old 05-01-2010, 05:34 AM
 
1,841 posts, read 960,498 times
Reputation: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by eloy View Post
After viewing of video I had an assumption. That animals evolved to level of "Gods" earlier than a monkey. And the destroyed remains
Egypt and the South America is a civilisation of animals. " Gods " to destroy the opponents of - other "Gods". "Winners were to people in a kind of"Pangolin"- Jahve, on an example. Approximately so.
There are two types of people: From a monkey (or) (cloned).
And born by : (God - father) . Because there are mysterious examples of a finding of people in coffins under a coal layer.
there are two types of people yes, but only the monkey can be cloned.
which one are you saying came from God?
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 $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 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