|
|
|
|
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 1:53:29 AM | Mai Tai,
How do I know that all these facts about the nature of God you're telling us are true?
@ aremyself,
no religion no evolution? What do we talk about then? | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 2:26:17 AM | talk about whatever you want.
we will never see something turn into something else.
stuff interbreeds, adapts, etc. no new information was added, that I could see.
not what I am led to believe is evolution.
got to be more precise information than that to convince someone of evolution with no guidance, to me anyway. | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 2:26:53 AM | Coolnomad - What does being nice have to do with the truth? If you aren't intelligent enough to be able to understand the research that is being done, how do you expect to get anything from the article in question?
The most brilliant article in the world could be published on evolution. But if you aren't intelligent enough to understand the methodology they use to conduct their research and if you aren't intelligent enough to know how the biological processes work.. you won't be able to get anything from the article.
The truth isn't always nice.
See what I mean?
we will never see something turn into something else.
I just posted an article that proved that things will turn into separate species because in the world of biology.. we are all the same. There is no "separate kind" there are only genetic differences which prevent certain organisms from reproducing with others who don't share the genetic similarities. This causes grouping and groups stay together.
My original saying still stands.
stuff interbreeds, adapts, etc. no new information was added, that I could see.
not what I am led to believe is evolution.
Adaptation IS evolution. What is this 'new information' you speak of? Your question lacks content. Information is simply fluff to try to make your argument sound valid because the mere thought of adapting to ones environment will ultimately add information. But you just contradicted yourself by saying that no new information was added. Your question lacks substance. A question without substance is just a bunch of BS.
got to be more precise information than that to convince someone of evolution with no guidance, to me anyway.
What would convince you of evolution? Seeing another creature turn into something else? Like a Frog to a Horse? Sorry to disappoint, but evolution is not like pokemon.
My original saying still stands. You must be intelligent enough to gather the information and be able to Dissect the information. If you can't do that, then whatever information we give you will be worthless. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/2/2009 2:35:17 AM |
From National Academy of Sciences:
"Mirror Symmetry Breaking at the Molecular Level"
Sign, that paper is dated 1996. One of the papers I quoted was from Nature, 2004 and the other 2002. I'm sure there are later papers, although I haven't done a literature survey.
Anyway, the case for Quantum Evolution (that some people are proposing here) is difficult for other reasons. These are generally the same reasons that Quantum Consciousness is controversial, i.e. there is too much "noise" in the local environment to enable coherent states to be maintained for long enough periods of time. Actually I think it entirely possible that this objection can be overcome, particularly in the case of Consciousness and it may be the case that mutation on the cellular level indeed uses some kind of QM mechanism to "sample" its environment. But this isn't intelligence; it's a kind of computation (quantum computation). I still think that if nature provides such a mechanism, it would have evolved like every other (the evolution of evolvability).
From Wiki (yea I know...)
A primer on quantum mechanics (such as from David J. Griffiths' "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics") suggests that the very notion of having a molecule choose a state over all others purely based on an exterior system, with no simultaneous effects on said molecule, is completely contrary to how quantum mechanics works. Quantum mechanical states are dependent on things like energy and other physical phenomena. Furthermore, imposing a viewpoint that one outcome is best implies that a best configuration needs some formal definition that is independent of organism lifespan, reproductivity, etc (as quantum mechanics does not depend on those things) and that the best configuration does depend on things such as energy levels, perturbations to the molecule, and similar things. When all of these are taken into consideration then the best state would seem to yield a truly random mutation as per what is perceived by humans as evolution.
However, the theory, at least that proposed by McFadden and Al-Khlaili [8], did not propose that certain states are identified as 'best' by the quantum system but only that certain states interact with the environment more strongly than other states and thereby promote more rapid decoherence. For a starving cell, these more interactive states are those DNA states that encode mutations that allow the cell to grow.
Of course, DNA, like all molecules, already obeys the laws of quantum mechanics, including quantum superpositions, collapses, and tunneling. The consequences of these laws are more commonly known as quantum chemistry, which explains all of the familiar chemical laws. Since the chemical behavior of DNA is reasonnably well-understood, and already includes both (ordinary) quantum mechanics and (ordinary) mutations, it is not yet clear where the additional effects of quantum evolution are supposed to arise.
| |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 8:49:43 AM | well, versen, if thats all it took for you to believe in something as impossible as,
evolution, or at least EXTREMLY challenging, then you are pretty simple, so I am not going to believe that you could be THAT simple.
if that convinced you, then you obviously wanted to believe evolution.
if adaptation IS evolution, then I believe in evolution, and evolution is then not necessarily, something changing into another spe
what pertinant information did I fail to "dissect", if I may be so humble to ask of thee, oh wise one of the universe?
I'm serious about the what. | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 9:18:58 AM | The issues related to gene mutations are well explaine in materials available on the web. Gene mutations are NOT entirely random, as I've hinted in previous posts. Evolution presumably selects for important stable regions of genes and for useful potential mutation points. Scientific evidence throughout the descriptions I have read points to evidence that mutation frequency is not constant along the genetic material.
One way that genetic material is added is by gene duplication. Extra copies are inserted into the DNA. These genes often duplicate the functions of the original gene, but may then mutate to develop a different function. This phenomenom is known as polymorphism and is EXTREMELY common. A well respected text on the topic is Ohno S (1970) Evolution by gene duplication. London: George Allen and Unwin.
A web page describing it is http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020206
One simple exampe would be the duplication of the Amylase gene in populations of people eating a predominantly starch diet. - Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation - http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n10/abs/ng2123.html.
Another example would be the evolution of primate color vision - http://genome.cshlp.org/content/9/7/629.full The Evolution of Trichromatic Color Vision by Opsin Gene Duplication in New World and Old World Primates. Evolution of color vision was by duplication of genes regulating the cone receptors in the eye. Subsequent mutations of the genes resulted in different proteins, sensitive to different light wavelengths. Apparently, the evolution of color vision was different in New World and Old World monkeys - http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2007/04/16/seeing-red
I'm not a geneticist. never even took a class in genetics and I live a long way from a library, yet in the few weeks that I have participated in this thread, I have (as was my intent) learned a great deal about evolution. Given the interest of some of the opponents to evolution, I presume that they have been interested in the topic for much longer, yet have failed to come up with answers to their own questions. The acceptance or rejection of the answers is irrelevant - I have had the same, or probably less time to find answers to the questions. I'm just talking about discovery of facts. In fact, in my quest for the answers, I have hinted at partial answers on the way, yet they were ignored. Would this be a further example of how the proposed 'creationist' science would be taught to our kids? No efforts made to explore facts for themselves? Refusal to accept, or even explore facts which don't fit in with favored world models? Despite the admonishments in this thread to teach our kids to think, the examples of 'thinking' by those opposed to evolution seem far from what I, or even they would find acceptable for our kids in schools.
Once more, I have to point out that the ONLY suppression arising in the evolution/creation debate is the suppression of science. There is no intent to disprove God by science, just as was the case in Galileo's time. Perhaps the real problem with creationists is the fragility of their faith and their inability to incorporate new scientific ideas into their imperfect models of their own existence.
we will never see something turn into something else. Is this one of those irrefutable 'facts' that we should be sure to teach our kids? Kinda closed minded, isn't it?
I would have to agree with exo. I was educated in a church school, have parents who can quote the bible verbatim and abuse it to the furtherance of their own delusions, and a grandfather who could turn to the bible page of any quotation you cared to give him. After that brainwashing, it was a true challenge to navigate my way to any semblence of reality. Did it help? - possibly - because it made me question the prevalent belief system and develop a sense of skepticism that has served me very well. For me, most of that wasn't in school (where religion and science were completely separate subjects). Would I recommend religious brainwashing as a way to educate kids in science and critical thinking? ABSOLUTELY NOT! keep religion out of science classes It has absolutely no place there.
As for keeping evolution out of science classes, the differing views on evolution and abiogenesis used by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolution suggests that those trying to understand the science are not accepting any dogmatic position about how it came about. They are engaged in lively debate regarding what may and may not be possible and exploring new ideas all of the time. A side-effect of all of their ruminations are ways to take advantage of the exciting new discoveries made along the way for the betterment of human lives. In other words, they are THINKING - because that is what their science education has taught them to do. | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 9:40:08 AM | will read your stuff.
yes, keep religion out of schools.
and evolution as proof, fact, which it is NOT.
its not been proven to me, what can I say?
have never jumped on a band wagon.
I am not picking on anyone here, just evolution.
things adapt, isn't that nice?
many believe evolution with NO reading, not good to take others word for anything.
Sagans point for religion and evolution.
and we won't see things turn into other things, is that a stretch?
so we agree that there are not enough useful mutations alone for "us" to have come about, man from chimp, 4 million years or so?
thanks | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 10:42:13 AM | http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Evolution IS a fact. What you are basically saying is the same thing as, despite the atomic bomb, atomic theory is not a fact and should not be taught. EVERYTHING in biology only makes sense in light of evolution. Without evolution, nothing makes sense. What you are suggesting is to not teach the BACKBONE of modern biology.. do you realize that? That would be like not wanting to teach what quarks are in quantum physics.
its not been proven to me, what can I say?
Luckily you arent the judge of what has been proven or not because fact and science is not a democracy. Things are what they are and evolution, being adaptation and change over a long period of time, is a fact.
many believe evolution with NO reading, not good to take others word for anything.
It's good to accept what the SCIENTISTS (heretetic) have to say rather than some layman such as you, sign11, MaiTai2 and that other guy who don't work in the field. It would be like me telling you how to fix up a car when i'm not a mechanic and working on cars is what you do for a living.
and we won't see things turn into other things, is that a stretch?
Evolution is not pokemon! How many times do I have to say this!!!
so we agree that there are not enough useful mutations alone for "us" to have come about, man from chimp, 4 million years or so?
We actually have many MANY useful mutations that occur within us as a species. | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 11:20:38 AM |
its not been proven to me, what can I say? Scools aren't about proving anything. They are about giving our kids the tools to lead productive, creative lives. The theory of evolution is one such useful tool - as many in this thread have pointed out in many messages. Where do you get the idea that science classes simply brainwash kids into believing evolution? Where do you get the idea that kids aren't taught thinking skills in science classes? Try a search on related keywords to see if critical thinking is a concern in education.
It seems to me that the creationist foundation is just a reaction to a whole pile of wrong impressions and misinformation.
aremeself raises a very interesting point, though. It has been widely accepted that no-one in today's world can be a Renaissance person - someone who is fully conversant with all of the intellectual knowledge of the day. That leaves us with the need to rely on other people to do some of our understanding for us. The issue of trust becomes an important social function. Would that be having faith in our fellow human beings? What can-of-worms does THAT bring up? Conspiracy theories abound. How will humankind make more progress if we continue to demonstrate such distrust for each other?
It also bears upon exo's comments on consciousness. Human consciousness is greater than individual consciousness. Is there any way way for humans to evolve other than to embrace this collective consciousness. And if we can have a collective consciousness greater than any individual, is it equally possible that individuals are collections of multiple lesser consciousnesses, making individual organisms just a single point on a continuum of consciousness across creation? Then, of course, there are the experiments which suggest that consciousness is merely a delusion, persuading us that we thought about something before the decision was made. | |
|
| |
| |
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 2:51:55 PM | Again your reference is quite old. Here's a more up to date paper:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5617/325
I'm sure there are later ones.
Lake Victoria harbors a unique species-rich flock of more than 500 endemic haplochromine cichlid fishes. The origin, age, and mechanism of diversification of this extraordinary radiation are still debated. Geological evidence suggests that the lake dried out completely about 14,700 years ago. On the basis of phylogenetic analyses of almost 300 DNA sequences of the mitochondrial control region of East African cichlids, we find that the Lake Victoria cichlid flock is derived from the geologically older Lake Kivu. We suggest that the two seeding lineages may have already been lake-adapted when they colonized Lake Victoria. A haplotype analysis further shows that the most recent desiccation of Lake Victoria did not lead to a complete extinction of its endemic cichlid fauna and that the major lineage diversification took place about 100,000 years ago.
| |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 3:13:12 PM | We've got a handful of biologists on this thread that can tell people stuff about evolution and whatnot... is there a sociologist out there reading this that can tell me what the hell is going on in this thread? i.e. why is this track on repeat?
@verzen - i forgot to put the :p on that post. | |
|
| |
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 3:27:30 PM |
This being so, can random mutations -- the accepted source of evolutionary novelty -- have generated so many new species in such a short time? That would be one new species every 40 years or so on the average.
Really, this is elementary and, frankly, stupid. If you have a single population that spits out a new species every now and then, yes, it would have to be as rapid as every 40 years. But after the first speciation event, you now have two species, not one, so the calculation isn't linear, it's exponential (in an ideal mathematical sense). If all parent species produce one new child species, you need ~8 speciation events to reach your total (actually 8 point something). Of course nothing so ideal happens in the real world, so there would likely have to be many more. Even so, nothing like one every 40 years is needed.
With respect to mutation, "random" mutation is just one form of variation. You still have to consider sexual recombination, capable of producing a vast array of subtle differences between individuals. Provided populations become geographically separated (as they are in Lake Victora via. `rocky outcrops' under water), these differences can provide new pathways for Evolution to walk. | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 4:18:10 PM |
Why are you unaware of that fact?
Better question: why do you keep bringing up the same few points in a circular fashion, though the circumstances or explanation have already been explained to you in this very thread? | |
|
| |
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 1143 | |
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 4:30:07 PM | Can some one scientifically define Jealousy and its "ORIGIN"
The sciences that pertain to social behavior and neurology probably can, albeit with differing facets of "ORIGIN" implied by context.
Several of the behavioral sciences would likely be able to outline how this is a learned behavior, Neuroscience can tell you what areas of the brain that "JEALOUSY" maps to.
MACRO-EVOLUTION
Is a Creationist construct that implies a different mechanism - a straw man.
Apparently it's only 12,400 years old.
By your reasoning, a lake stops being a lake if it dries out.
An automobile stop being an automobile when it isn't moving; –uses the same faulty reasoning.
Nice paralogism but, no sale.
Avoid the faulty reasoning –and the corroborative nature of the two articles is in plain sight. | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 4:39:55 PM |
If you or any other supposed "scientist" can't even supply a factual answer to a simple question like, "how old is the lake"? or "How many species of fish are there in the lake?" why should anyone believe ANY of your answers?
what do you mean by scientist? what is a scientist? Are you a scientist? you must be if you're working on holographic bowling alleys... or at least have some scientific training derived from 'some university' or maybe the annunaki.
you've apparently already supplied the answer to how old the lake is with the very sources you cited... 1/4 million years old and it dried out 12,400 years ago or something and then got water again. Are you saying that you want one of us to go over there and do the geological assessment of the lake ourselves?
what exactly is the point that you're trying to make? your argument isn't REALLY about lakes and fish... i know this much: you disbelieve in darwinian evolution (which is an old hat by the way)
quick, can you do me a favor and in two or three short (key: SHORT) bullets outline your position. e.g.:
1. I disagree w/evolutionary theories as they exist today.
2. Proposition X is a better explanation to replace evolutionary theories.
3. Link to site Y outlining the mechanism of proposition X | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 4:50:47 PM |
Are you implying that the mainstream biology textbook that I quoted, which is currently used in college in the U.S. is a "creationist" textbook creating a 'straw man" argument?
Another misleading statement. What do you mean by this is currently used in college in the U.S.? Don't you live in Canada? How do you know what the curriculum of US courses consists of and even more specifically what sources they're using as facts? Which one of your sources is a textbook? I haven't read all the articles yet but it looks like one's a paper, one's a newspaper, and the others are journals.. none of which look like textbooks that a college uses.
And dude... seriously... he's calling the labels Macro and Micro with respect to evolution strawmen not the biology articles that you posted links to. What's the distinction between the two? when does one begin and the other end? Does the distinction imply that new alleles can be formed but speciation can't arise as a result? | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 5:00:03 PM | Wow, this discussion has gone through so many circles, I'm dizzy.
So let me synopsize....
Yes, evolution is a true scientific theory based on solid evidence. Creation is not.
No, there is no evidence for a "conscious creator" beyond the creation. A "signature," if you will.
Species weren't magically "created" by an invisible sky friend. Evidence abounds for their development. Whales, birds, people...all species that show evidence of evolving. No, you cannot dig up every animal within a species or related species to show development. You don't have to. It is enough to have a sampling and perform the appropriate anatomical comparisons.
Abiogenesis is currently the best explanation for the origin of the first self-replicating forms of life. The only other alternative is unseen and undefined "intention" which, for all intents and purposes, might as well be called "God." Again, unproveable.
God is a matter of faith, not reason. However, one can make apparently "reasoned" arguments for God. However, in the end, it is a matter of faith.
Reason cannot 'disprove' God because you cannot prove a negative. Again, His non-existence must be taken on faith.
Does that round things out? | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 1147 | |
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 5:05:53 PM |
Are you implying
The context you are using it in is fallacious.
The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution")
~ Matzke, Nicholas J. and Paul R. Gross. 2006. Analyzing Critical Analysis: The Fallback Antievolutionist Strategy. In Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch, Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for Our Schools, Beacon Press | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 5:08:01 PM | Why are you unaware of that fact? Which fact - the one that newspaper articles are better sources than scientific papers? - the one that a single sentence plucked out of ANY article is often out of context and therefore misleading. The one where YOU make up statements which have no bearing on reality?
Ole Seehausen. Patterns in fish radiation are compatible with Pleistocene desiccation of Lake Victoria and 14 600 year history for its cichlid species flock. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 March 7; 269(1490): 491–497.
As for the Science article, did you INTENTIONALLY leave out the remainder of the abstract which wouldn't support your criticism? You seem to attach more importance to the suggestion of geological evidence than to the remainder of the abstract detailing scientific findings. But that would be entirely comaptible with your persistent failure to honestly represent ANY scientific position. Do you really think that life would be better if we made decisions based on 'suggestions' instead of reality. I think you indicated at one stage in this wandering thread that your education didn't include much science. Perhaps a little more science education may have helped you better discriminate fact and fancy. Wouldn't that hold you up as a shining example of why science should not be suppressed in the school curriculum?
For those who don't have access to the article, Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks, Axel Meyer. Origin of the Superflock of Cichlid Fishes from Lake Victoria, East Africa. Science 11 April 2003: Vol. 300. no. 5617, pp. 325 - 329 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/300/5617/325) the authors use genetic fingerprinting to trace lineage from fish in surrounding lakes Edward, George, and Kivu. They bring together evidence for geological changes in the Rift Valley to suggest that significant changes in geology and water flow allowed repopulation of Lake Victoria from fish in other lakes.
Just another of several 'possibilities' to explain observations which challenge current scientific theories.
The fact is that the anti-science lobby wouldn't even be aware of the problems posed to science by these issues if scientists weren't aware of the challenges they present, open about the shortcomings of their current positions , hotly pusuing them and debating how to correct them. Few things get the science community more excited and creative than a few findings which don't add up. That is generally followed by feverish activity to verify findings and explain discrepencies between the various research findings. Usually coming up with a significantly better understanding of the world around us. They don't just sit back, shrug and say 'God did it".
In contrast, the God squad gets pissed off and crabby whenever anything comes along to challenge their comfortable dogmas. They seem to try any tricks to suppress change and the development of new ideas - and now want their 'enlightened' methods taught as 'science' | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 5:24:42 PM |
Because every university in the united states uses the same text book. And dude, leave my monkey out of this he's your uncle too you know.
It isn't used in a university.
BIOLOGY: THE DYNAMICS OF LIFE. Science Standards Grades 8-9.
That was the book used in my 7th grade honors Biology class. | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 5:26:33 PM | it takes a Canadian to point out what books are being used in American colleges to an American
Once more telling lies - or is it just a pathological inability to get ANY facts right?..
Biology: The Dynamics of Life is a comprehensive high school biology program designed to capture the interest of all students
^^^^That's a quote from the Amazon.com page you linked. Didn't you READ it?
None of the authors have a background in evolution. | |
|
|
| Page 46 of 50
|
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, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 |
|
Home
login 
