Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 921
Evolution.Page 37 of 64    (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, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)
And, of course, good ole reliable Talkorigins.com

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 922
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/30/2011 8:06:33 PM
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

those are just presuposition stories.
I would already have to believe in evolution to gobble that up.

you don't seem to get it, there is no obvious evidence of beneficial mutations, like dozens of base points creating totally new genetic information and body parts.

BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS ARE THE RAW MATERIAL FOR EVOLUTION and we can't find any evidence of that happening.

on to the next site.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 923
Evolution.
Posted: 3/30/2011 8:14:26 PM

those are just presuposition stories.
I would already have to believe in evolution to gobble that up.

you don't seem to get it, there is no obvious evidence of beneficial mutations, like dozens of base points creating totally new genetic information and body parts.

BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS ARE THE RAW MATERIAL FOR EVOLUTION and we can't find any evidence of that happening.




Someone wisely observed that discussing evolution with a creationist is like trying to teach a pigeon to play chess. They knock over all the pieces, crap on the board and then fly back to the flock to declare victory.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 924
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/30/2011 8:22:42 PM
so your not going to touch the beneficial mutation thing then, I don`t blame you.

krebby, can`t get yours to work.
tell you buddy to be a little less condissending.

so you really can`t come up with another reason for monkey dna and human dna and rice dna and poop dna being related.


 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 925
Evolution.
Posted: 3/30/2011 8:29:15 PM

so your not going to touch the beneficial mutation thing then, I don`t blame you.


Okay, little pigeon. I'll play your little game.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Really aremeself, you are the quintessential intellectually dishonest creationist. I know this has been discussed with you time and again. And, like a typical creationist, your response is "LA LA LA YOU DON'T HAVE PROOF," no matter what you're presented with.
In the meantime, do you know what natural selection is? Can you define it? Because that is central to any discussion of evolution.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 926
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/30/2011 8:59:04 PM
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria, are YOU going to read something then maybe too.

you just go on and on , don`t you, gazer.
you`re so itelgent eh.

borrom line, looks to me that bacteria can do specific new jobs, with tons of sacrifices.
they mutate so fast that it is thought they have a way to direct it, not random.
remember, bacteria have millions of base points, it would have to be a long drawn out prosess, if they do it quickly, something else is going on.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 927
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/30/2011 9:07:40 PM
krebby
looks to me that your giving reasons and excuses as to why we can`t find the evidence that should be realitivly easy to find, seeing as every living thing on earth should be evolving new base points at least at a speed we could detect.

don`t you think.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 928
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/30/2011 11:13:54 PM

Quite a bit, actually, and the fact that you even ask the question is quite telling to your level of knowledge of science.


Myth vs. science?: consider this:

"How different is this allegory of the emergence of the world from Chaos from the modern Big Bang Theory with its inexplicable components? To me, the answer is, "not much, if anything.""

Not my words. I am not alone, nor am I completely lacking in knowledge, simply lacking in agreement with you, which apparently renders you capable of assessing my level of intelligence and/or knowledge. Whatever works for you, and for me, as well.

btw, presenting (as is proposed regarding the theory of creationism) does not equal teaching, per se. What exactly are you who so vehemently oppose the presentation of another theory so afraid of? Aren't you, as parents, prepared to discuss this issue with your children, as those who adhere to either Theism or Atheism have done for so long? Have you not prepared your children to think for themselves? Making a mountain out of a molehill, as far as I am concern ed.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 929
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 4:44:30 AM

borrom line, looks to me that bacteria can do specific new jobs, with tons of sacrifices.
they mutate so fast that it is thought they have a way to direct it, not random.
remember, bacteria have millions of base points, it would have to be a long drawn out prosess, if they do it quickly, something else is going on.


Okay, here's a question that creationists always avoid: what's natural selection?
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 930
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 9:35:19 AM

BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS ARE THE RAW MATERIAL FOR EVOLUTION and we can't find any evidence of that happening.

Really? Are you blind? Ever hear of Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus? What about HIV? Do you really think the mutations those bacteria and viruses undergo are not beneficial to those organisms? I think your problem is that you think that like creationism, evolution is supposed to be all about you. It's not. Humans are just one more branch tht may or may not be successful in the long run.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 931
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 11:38:39 AM

Myth vs. science?: consider this:

"How different is this allegory of the emergence of the world from Chaos from the modern Big Bang Theory with its inexplicable components? To me, the answer is, "not much, if anything.""

Not my words.


No, her's:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/bio/N-S-Gill-575.htm

And she is:


N.S. Gill is a Latinist and freelance writer with a longtime focus on the classical world.

Experience:

In addition to writing about ancient history and classics for About.com, NS has been interviewed by Public Radio and National Geographic on Valentine's Day and the Roman calendar. She has TA'd classes in the Age of Pericles, technical terms, Classical culture and mythology. She has also taught Latin.

Education:

N.S. Gill has a B.A. in Latin and an M.A. in linguistics at the University of Minnesota. She has also done graduate level coursework on classics at the University of Minnesota, writing two master's level papers, one on the misdating of an Oxyrhynchus papyrus and the other on Ovid as part of the program.


So no mention in there of having a degree in astrophysics or physics.


Making a mountain out of a molehill, as far as I am concern ed.


Creationism, theism, all are fine in a social studies class. But I'd suggest you pick up a newspaper and read about what's happening in the U.S. and the push by fundamentalist Christians to try and bring religious teachings (Creationism) into the science classroom, in violation of a major section of the U.S. Constitution.

Fortunately, in Canada, the fundies don't have nearly as much oomph...at least, not yet!
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 932
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 11:48:10 AM
btw, presenting (as is proposed regarding the theory of creationism) does not equal teaching, per se. What exactly are you who so vehemently oppose the presentation of another theory so afraid of?

No one is opposed to teaching a different theory, but before a theory is considered to be science it has to satisfy several criteria, namely that it makes predictions, that those predictions are able to distinguish it from other theories and that those predictions would falsify its premises if the predictions turned out to be wrong. Do you know of ANY creationist ``theory'' which makes predictions which depend on the existence of a creator and which would falsify the premise of a creator if the predictions turned out to be incorrect? I'm goig to go out on a limb here and say no. To the best I can tell, every creationist theory is an attempt to make exactly the same predictions that the theory of evolution makes to avoid any risk of being shown to be incorrect and having the entire premise of a creator falsified. That makes all of those theories unscientific. Those so-called theories have to first wait for the evidence supporting the theory of evolution just to figure out how to incorporate a new result that would be a prediction of the theory of evolution.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 933
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 12:45:53 PM

That led me to think as to the time involved for evolution. If a bacterium takes half of a billion replications in order to have a very small change, how many years would it take for man to evolve from apes, considering all of the changes necessary, including making the DNA strand longer, with more information, and considering that each generation will be at least 12 years long before it can reproduce?


Here's a good book that explains evolution.

http://contemporarylit.about.com/od/history/fr/ancestorsTale.htm
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 934
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 1:16:45 PM

By the way, did man and ape at one time have a common ancestor, and then man evolve in one direction while the ape didn't?


The ape did. So did we. In different directions.


I never referred to any deadline or schedule, but my question is how is it that if you were to take the example of the bacterium and how many generations it took for them to make only ONE change, then consider how many changes need to happen to evolve from the common ancestor to man, and allow about 10 years for each single DNA change, then the time lines that are currently used are way, way, way too short.


It isn't just one change at a time, now, is it. DNA makes many changes at once. But no one is going to be able map out each of the individual changes that occurred between the common ancestor to us.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 936
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 4:51:48 PM
>>>Obviously the ape stopped evolving quite a bit before we did

Nope, they continued to evolve just as we had.

>>>as their DNA carries a lot less info then human DNA, or at least that is what I am led to believe.

I don't know if its honestly true, but there's no reason to assume an ape has less complex DNA than us because feel we are more complex. For example, the most complex chromosomes found are in a fern. The most complex animals in chromosomes is a breed of butterfly.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 937
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 5:18:56 PM

Obviously the ape stopped evolving quite a bit before we did, as their DNA carries a lot less info then human DNA, or at least that is what I am led to believe.


first of all, can you cite something that supports that assertion? Or does it just come from the fact that apes don't live in high rises so they're obviously "less" than humans?


I just find it inconceiveable that it didn't take many many more times the amount of time to evolve to where we are now.


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 938
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 5:19:13 PM

Obviously the ape stopped evolving quite a bit before we did, as their DNA carries a lot less info then human DNA, or at least that is what I am led to believe.


first of all, can you cite something that supports that assertion? Or does it just come from the fact that apes don't live in high rises so they're obviously "less" than humans?


I just find it inconceiveable that it didn't take many many more times the amount of time to evolve to where we are now.


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 939
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 6:00:59 PM

My problem stems from the fact that I read about evolution as much as time permits, and my conclusion is simply that it should have taken a lot longer for an organism to evolve from primoreal pond scum to Einstein.


By who's estimation and by what standard? What is your level of understanding of molecular biology and genetics?


"I just find it inconceiveable that it didn't take many many more times the amount of time to evolve to where we are now.",
that was a conclusion, not an argument.


Semantics. The conclusion is drawn, based on an argument from personal incredulity - a statement that starts off "I just find it inconceivable" is the textbook definition for just such an argument.


Yes, I do believe that apes are less than humans in most ways. They may be stronger physically, but yet humans have no trouble dominating apes. I really don't buy into the idea that we are all somehow "equal"..................


Well, we can have a discussion on anthropocentrism I guess. However, the fact that apes share as much as 96 per cent of the same genes is the argument against that statement anyway. We are not better than apes. We are apes. Just a different branch.


Maybe the problem is that I am asking the question the wrong way..........


You are basing your questions on creationist-like presuppositions. Which usually start off as fallacious. That is the problem.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 940
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 6:39:18 PM

Obviously the ape stopped evolving quite a bit before we did, as their DNA carries a lot less info then human DNA, or at least that is what I am led to believe.

I would say not to follow that lead anymore.

My question concerns the time that keeps being bandied about as to how long it took for man to evolve to where we are now. I just find it inconceiveable that it didn't take many many more times the amount of time to evolve to where we are now. I am curious just how long it would take for just one particular aspect of humans would take to evolve...

You are asking a question based upon the assumption that humans replicate as identically as bacteria do. That is a hugely false assumption. Just think about it: do you look like your dad-- I mean EXACTLY alike? Like a twin or clone? Go back to the oldest family portraits of ancestors you can find. Do you look exactly like any of the men? And that is only appearance, let alone all the less obvious differences.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 941
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 8:50:40 PM

Apes are better evolved to live in the jungle, humans not so much.


Evolved or adapted? I don't believe that we "dominate" apes either, as I don't see that we are able to govern or control them, except in an alternate environment. In any case, if we evolved from apes, what the hell are they still doing here?!?!
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 942
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 8:54:04 PM

In any case, if we evolved from apes, what the hell are they still doing here?!?!


Again...we didn't evolve from apes. We share common ancestry with apes. But asking that question is the same as asking "if we were colonized by the British and the French, why do we still have English and French people?"
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 943
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 8:56:17 PM
That is the last and feeblest argument of all...."time will tell whether increased intelligence is a positive evolutionary trait"!!! Obviously it is not. What a waste of given intelligence and possibility. As an ape you have NO possibility to becoming anything other than your ape instincts. Is this an argument in favour of worshipping apes? Man was given a free will and possibilities galore. Man has also denied free will and the possibilities galore. Please we are not children. Man squaunders, apes are only capable of instinctual and habitual and ANIMAL responses. Lessons? Live to the best of your friggen human capabilities without intellectual excuses.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 944
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 9:01:56 PM

Man squaunders, apes are only capable of instinctual and habitual and ANIMAL responses. Lessons? Live to the best of your friggen human capabilities without intellectual excuses.

Does that include embracing rationality, good sense, and logic?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 945
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 9:08:29 PM
Does that include embracing rationality, good sense, and logic?


Heaven forbid!



Or any degree of humility, either, apparently.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 946
Evolution.
Posted: 3/31/2011 9:29:19 PM
Rationality, good sense and logic are overrated. Humility on the other hand is to be desired and cultivated.The intellect is the last stand in defense of one's individual ego and who has anything to be gained after a few short years from the ego? Who? What sinks ships ain't loose lips only, what sinks ships is misplaced reason. Thinking is hard and easily warped by every friggen individual's ego. When you see the beauty of one who combines both wise thought and wise heart, you then have a chance to learn. Unfortunately, it matters much more to be right. O laa laaa laa.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >