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  > Evolution.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 1426
view profile
History
Evolution. Page 58 of 63    (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, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63)
aremeself:

WE don't determine which mutations are "useless." Circumstances do that. That's what evolution is all about.

As for the notion that we "were" more perfect before we mutated, that's more or less a contradiction to how we think evolution works. You can be a more "perfect" match FOR YOUR CURRENT ENVIRONMENT, but you are not more or less perfect without reference to anything else.

By the way, some "useless" mutations can turn out to be very useFUL, later on.

It has recently been discovered that there are some people who are naturally immune to the HIV. Guess why? Because they carry left over mutations that occurred in response to the medieval plagues. Now, the descendants of those "useless" mutants have helped to actually CURE the first person to BE actually completely CURED of HIV.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1427
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/8/2011 9:23:59 PM
wish I WAS the one who came up with that, halftime.


we get deleterious mutations=many sicknesses caused by mutations. [several thousand]

even more mutations are not good or bad, but add up taking up space.

very few, if any are 100% beneficial.

so add it up, useless mutations seem to keep coming, doesn't it stand to reason that there will at some point in the future be some problems?

ccr5 is a deletion mutation [something is destroyed in the dna]

duplication also doesn't add anything new. [not proven to add genetic information]

where am I wrong here?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1428
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/8/2011 10:05:02 PM
so you guys really have faith in most neutral mutations [they are adding up] becoming useful some day?
the mutations you speak of appear totally at random.
environment does not pressure the correct mutations in appearing.
they are all 100% mistakes.
and you are all betting on mistakes!

I presume that there is very little clearcut evidence of this.

and I still can not in all the information about evolution find out how information is added to the genome [adding base pairs to come up with a more advanced spieces].

not just mutating existing information.
you do realize that mutations always destroy.
somtimes there are benefits to that, not often.

quote;

Changes or mutations in our DNA occur at a certain rate. They are an inevitable byproduct of our cellular functions. From one perspective, mutations happen very rarely; on average, only 1 in 30 million nucleotides mutates per person every generation. However there are 3 billion nucleotides in our genome. Therefore every individual carries, on average, 100 new mutations!

Most of these 100 new mutations have no effect by themselves. They are said to "drift", either accumulating or disappearing across generations purely by chance. Therefore, within a population, there will be a large stock of mutations represented in different individuals, the so-called "gene pool".
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 1429
Evolution.
Posted: 10/8/2011 10:15:15 PM
I have no idea where you're getting your information from.

I'm just a somewhat curious layman, but even I recognize that this is the weirdest nonsense I've seen on this subject. For instance, more base pairs doesn't mean a more advanced species - or maybe it does. I do know that there are a whole lot of species on this planet with a lot more base pairs in their dna than our species does. So, I guess sponges are a more advanced species.

And WTF are you on about when you're prattling on about "mistakes." It doesn't make any sense at all in this context.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1430
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/8/2011 10:19:13 PM
for a spieces to get wings, many base pairs would have to be added.
halftime, you like talking down to people?, do some readen.

why all so worried about sourses?

google, put things together.

I could be off.
science is too many times.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1431
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/8/2011 11:36:07 PM
so specifically tell me where I am wrong and why.

tell me how it is.

for eg. do you think our genome is acquiring more and more mutations that are not doing any good?

they are taking up vauable space.

thats what I see, you?

correct me, but not with dogmatic storys.
 Kim1337
Joined: 3/13/2011
Msg: 1432
Evolution.
Posted: 10/9/2011 6:20:55 AM
Our knowledge about the world is full of holes, that doesn't mean we should stop teaching what we know.

The rest of your post is also absolute bullshit. Firstly, you end your post with saying we shouldnt lecture anyone about what you don't understand, but before that you presume to lecture us about what you clearly have no understanding of at all. I won't bother pointing out your glaringly obvious misunderstandings, as I know from experience it is no use discussing science with people like you.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1433
Evolution.
Posted: 10/9/2011 7:22:40 AM

There's a lot that we don't understand about this natural process yet. I wouldn't teach a subject about anything to anyone without at least a NEAR complete understanding of it. That would be irresponsible.


Yes, this is the typical logic use by creationists. We don't understand so don't teach the science. But hey! Here's a magic man in the sky that explains EVERYTHING!

Another typical argument:

Creationist: "You're missing a link between Animal A and Animal B! That's a problem for evolution!"

Rationalist: "Actually, you're incorrect. Here's an animal that genetically/morphologically shows a strong link between Animal A and Animal B."

Creationist: "Well now! Now you have two missing links! So...godidit!! I win!"

Rationalist: *facepalm!*
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 1434
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/9/2011 7:54:53 AM
Well said indeed, catalyst.

In addition, ignoble's argument is an example of mistaken thinking in another very important way. His examples, such as the bat, depend on the idea that bats ACQUIRED the echo-location ability, which was necessary to their survival. This "thinking" shows ignorance of how both evolution works, AND how logical reasoning itself works.

Bat's ARE what they are, BECAUSE if the abilities they have. In evolutionary terms, a creature does not ACQUIRE things, so much as they survive, they continue to exist because they happen to HAVE them. It would be more accurate to say that a bat IS a bat, BECAUSE it has those traits and abilities.

And this gives NO help to the cause of creationism whatsoever.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 1435
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/9/2011 8:23:03 AM

so specifically tell me where I am wrong and why.

Where you're going wrong is your assumptions are narrow minded, appear to be based on some kind of prejudice rather than understanding, and run counter to observed reality.

For instance -
so you guys really have faith in most neutral mutations [they are adding up] becoming useful some day?
the mutations you speak of appear totally at random.
environment does not pressure the correct mutations in appearing.
they are all 100% mistakes.
and you are all betting on mistakes!

No 'faith' is required and the words 'mistake' and 'mutation' are not synonymous.
'Mistake' carries a value judgement that 'mutation' does not.
Mutations are simply mutations. Some are beneficial, some are not, most have no discernible impact.

not just mutating existing information.
you do realize that mutations always destroy.
somtimes there are benefits to that, not often.

This ^^^ observation runs counter to reality. Unless you're arguing that evolution has been one long down hill slide from the glory days when all life was represented by single celled micro-organisms.

I could be off.
science is too many times.

Your record vs that of 'science'?
It's not looking good for you.
Science may well get it wrong sometimes, but considering the scale of the endeavor called 'science' the number of wrong turns is proportionally insignificant.
For every blind alley science went down it would be easy to name 1000 broad vistas it opened up.
Yet from that you conclude vaguely that "science is (off) too many times".

google, put things together.

Take your own advice, but try it with an open mind.
Or you could just look around? Evolutionary advance is blatant.

_______________________________________________________________________________________


There are perfectly good reasons aside from religious ones for not teaching evolution in depth.

What do you mean "aside from the religious ones"? There are no 'religious' reasons not to teach anything, since religion has no jurisdiction over education and no licence to proscribe what is, or isn't, worthwhile knowledge.


There's a lot that we don't understand about this natural process yet. I wouldn't teach a subject about anything to anyone without at least a NEAR complete understanding of it. That would be irresponsible.

On the contrary, it would be irresponsible not to educate even where knowledge is incomplete.
Firstly because the building of knowledge is a cumulative process so it follows that subsequent breakthroughs can only (generally) be accomplished by those who are already aware of the limits of current knowledge. To withhold that knowledge would therefore be counter-productive.
Secondly because it's nonsensical to wait for a hypothetical day when "near complete" understanding is achieved, presumably by magic, since no one is being educated on topics that lack this level of understanding.
Thirdly because "near complete" understanding is a theoretical ideal that it may be difficult to recognise, therefore it would be hard to tell when 'teaching' might safely begin.

And finally because the concept is broadly illogical...
Consider the rule 'not to teach until understanding is near complete' as applied retroactively. It would have prevented Galileo telling anyone about his discoveries since he actually knew very little about astronomy.
It would have prevented Marie Curie teaching at the University of Paris because her knowledge of radioactivity was pretty sketchy, and it would have prevented Charles Darwin communicating his, at the time, hypothesis regarding the origins of species. And so on, and so on.
Which all suggests it doesn't seem like a really helpful rule?
 Ignoble
Joined: 10/11/2007
Msg: 1436
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/9/2011 8:47:22 AM
I love how you all just took what I said, pasted on a bunch of your own assumptions, then told me I didn't understand. In case you hadn't noticed it was a short, generalized post. I am not a creationist. I have no religion.

Religion is a useful sociological tool. Which is why it's so prevalent in all kinds of cultures. You can't just dismiss it. In a mostly religious community it is perfectly understandable and even just for them to NOT teach evolution or anything else they deem inappropriate. Will they remain ignorant? Sure. That's their choice. Tolerance is a virtue people. Don't be Nazis.

For the record. I accept evolution. I was merely saying it is no where NEAR fully understood. Also when I said "CANNOT" be explained I didn't say it was "INEXPLICABLE". I assumed, given how everyone here seems to think highly of their own intelligence, that the distinction would be obvious.

I don't know how you all expect to have a logical, objective debate when you're all unwilling to compromise or accept other opinions. OH and the ad hominems are pathetic. All you people want to do is argue.

Also... what the heck are you talking about with a bat? The point you made... I never even broached. lol My POINT was that their echo location requires SEVERAL different anatomical traits working in CONJUNCTION to be at all useful and that all of those traits by themselves are USELESS. So what? One mutated progeny just so happened to have them all at once and they all just so happened to work together to achieve echo location? That's a fairy tale. There's obviously things we don't understand.

All I've read of evolution and surmised on my own leads me to believe that we have a VERY general understanding of the phenomenon. Teach that fact sure, go ahead. What you people want is to make evolution into a religion. Accepted as fact and irrefutable. Which is just as bad as an actual religion. Science is not about faith or unbending viewpoints. This is my last post on this thread unless someone makes a logical and/or objective point.

Enjoy feeling better about yourselves for using big words and always thinking its your way or the highway! Sounds fulfilling! ^_^
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1437
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/9/2011 8:59:26 AM
''Where you're going wrong is your assumptions are narrow minded, appear to be based on some kind of prejudice rather than understanding, and run counter to observed reality''

what prejudice?

what observed reality?

an opinion and

what don't I understsnd? help us all understand, specifically.
many, even scientists would love to hear you explain empirical evolutionary proof.

''Evolutionary advance is blatant.'' specifically name one, and tell me what mechanism was used to evolve.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 1438
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/9/2011 10:30:50 AM

I love how you all just took what I said, pasted on a bunch of your own assumptions, then told me I didn't understand. In case you hadn't noticed it was a short, generalized post. I am not a creationist. I have no religion.

I made no assumptions regarding your personal philosophy and I illustrated logically why your concepts were flawed.

Religion is a useful sociological tool. Which is why it's so prevalent in all kinds of cultures. You can't just dismiss it. In a mostly religious community it is perfectly understandable and even just for them to NOT teach evolution or anything else they deem inappropriate. Will they remain ignorant? Sure. That's their choice. Tolerance is a virtue people. Don't be Nazis.

Intolerance of ignorance is a virtue. Your defence of religion is therefore a concealed non-sequiter.


I was merely saying it is no where NEAR fully understood.

You were saying much more than that.
Here is what you said - "There are perfectly good reasons... for not teaching evolution in depth. The most glaringly obviously is... that its full of HOLES.
There's a lot that we don't understand about this natural process yet. I wouldn't teach a subject about anything to anyone without at least a NEAR complete understanding of it. That would be irresponsible.
"

The idea of not teaching subjects until some undefined, and probably unrecognisable, "NEAR complete understanding" is achieved is just silly.
Note (in my previous post) I attacked the idea, not the person.

I don't know how you all expect to have a logical, objective debate when you're all unwilling to compromise or accept other opinions. OH and the ad hominems are pathetic. All you people want to do is argue.

Ahem... I made no personal attacks. And the answer to your query regarding expectations of "logical, objective debate" is in the method. That is, address the points in a logical way, illustrate the fallacy, or point out the inconsistency, etc etc, rather than complaining in a generalised way about other peoples lack of intelligence, erecting straw men, and misrepresenting your own posts.

What you people want is to make evolution into a religion. Accepted as fact and irrefutable. Which is just as bad as an actual religion.

How does 'evolution', or 'science' become a 'religion'?
Religions are based on faith and subjective sets of beliefs. Science is based on observation and objective fact.
The two are entirely dissimilar.


This is my last post on this thread unless someone makes a logical and/or objective point.

Enjoy feeling better about yourselves for using big words and always thinking its your way or the highway! Sounds fulfilling! ^_^

I don't know how you "expect to have a logical, objective debate" if you fail to recognise logical and objective points when they're made, can't distinguish between opinion and fact, and indulge in furious straw-manning and non-sequitering before becoming huffy and slouching off when challenged.

Bye.



Where you're going wrong is your assumptions are narrow minded, appear to be based on some kind of prejudice rather than understanding, and run counter to observed reality.

what prejudice?

what observed reality?

an opinion and

what don't I understsnd? help us all understand, specifically.
many, even scientists would love to hear you explain empirical evolutionary proof.

''Evolutionary advance is blatant.'' specifically name one, and tell me what mechanism was used to evolve.

I'll make a deal with you. If you can maintain a logical sequence of 'question/idea' --- 'answer/counter idea', and put your thoughts into a near coherent structure, I'll address them.

Meanwhile, here's some reading for you...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html
http://archaeologyinfo.com/human-evolution/
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/default.htm
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://archaeologyinfo.com/
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1439
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/9/2011 11:47:59 AM
lying cheat

wanna stick to one thing?
I read all posts from 2871 on, and not one actual bit of empirical evidence for evolution.

plenty of saying stuff, but not even an attemt at any molecular empirical proof.

what's your favourite bit of actual evolutionary proof, no dogma please, fair?

dogma in this case would be to say some thing is just so.

eg. most scientists believe evolution to be true=dogma
bacteria proof evolution=dogma
there are volumes of information to prove evolution=dogma


so, the genome is loading up with many more useless mutations than beneficial ones.
do you agree?
why not?

your links are opinions and recycled evolutionary dogma, read by many of us the world over, which has failed to convince many [as in 1000nds] people smarter then us.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1440
Evolution.
Posted: 10/9/2011 11:56:48 AM

eg. most scientists believe evolution to be true=dogma
bacteria proof evolution=dogma
there are volumes of information to prove evolution=dogma


Creationist strategy when confronted by scientific evidence for evolution.

Clap hands over ears and shout "LA! LA! LA! ICKY FACTS GO AWAY!!!"
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 1441
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/9/2011 12:28:42 PM
I guess ignoble is gone already. I was going to ask how the phrase "cannot be explained" in any way differs from the meaning of the word "inexplicable."

Oh well.

As for something requiring "SEVERAL different anatomical traits working in CONJUNCTION," that pretty much applies to anything any creature does, including how an amoeba manages to move around. Just because you might think that a bat's abilities verge on magical, has nothing to do with the argument you were trying to make, which was that because YOU are impressed with a creatures abilities, that therefore something OTHER than evolution was involved with them having those abilities.

Again, if he's left, it doesn't matter I guess.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1442
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/9/2011 1:04:11 PM
CheshireCatalyst

name me one

give me your favourite article of empirical proof of evolution.
no dogma or just so storys please.



 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1443
Evolution.
Posted: 10/9/2011 1:34:40 PM

give me your favourite article of empirical proof of evolution.
no dogma or just so storys please.


Okay then. The best evidence EVER FOUND for common ancestry of apes and humans:

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

Let the equivocating begin!
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 1444
Evolution.
Posted: 10/9/2011 2:49:26 PM
Just because the facts contradict your dogma, doesn't mean that the entirely of the evidence is dogma.

Look, nobody can ever present evidence that will shake you from your beliefs. That's pretty much the definition of dogmatic. All the evidence points in one direction. That's why all scientists recognize it.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1445
Evolution.
Posted: 10/9/2011 4:23:31 PM

I have readily admitted to not being familiar with the chromosome fusion, but there are other ways to explain the sinario.


And it begins....


Under Neo-Darwinism, genetic mutation events (including chromosomal aberrations) are generally assumed to be random and unguided. Miller's Cold-Fusion tale becomes more suspicious when one starts to ask harder questions like "how could a fusion event get fixed into a population via random and unguided processes, or how could it result in viable offspring?" Miller's account must overcome two potential obstacles:


Aremeself: "LA LA LA LA LA!!"

Notice it avoids that sticky point of why apes and humans share so many similarities.


out of curiousity, when it is said many times that spieces turn up suddenly in the paleontology record, is that not a precursor to asking why?


Such as??
 Divisionbyzer0
Joined: 12/21/2010
Msg: 1446
Evolution.
Posted: 10/9/2011 5:03:46 PM
There is not linear map from genotypes to phenotypes. That we share 99% of the same genetic code does not correspondingly yield that we share 99% of a phenotype.
 Divisionbyzer0
Joined: 12/21/2010
Msg: 1447
Evolution.
Posted: 10/9/2011 5:08:16 PM
I mean, evolution is not synonymous with the neodarwinian orthodoxy. Plenty of people accept biological evolution without accepting the entire framework of neodarwinism, while simultaneously not throwing out the entire synthesis of evolutionary theory.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1448
Evolution.
Posted: 10/9/2011 7:59:49 PM

are you kidding me star?
apes could share 99.999999999999% of eveything in there whole genes with man, even the 90% content of the gene we know almost nothing about.


Yup, right on cue!


we still look and are a tad different I am going to presume.


We also look a lot alike. We also have a lot of very similar behaviours. It's a fascinating study...if you're intellectually honest enough to undertake it, that is. So I'm not expecting you to make an effort in that direction.


why should our dna be any more different from apes than it is?? it works, doesn't it?
just asking.


Ummm...mmmkay! Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.


rice, bananas, they similar too?


well, all life on the planet shares at least SOME genes in common but this is largely a non sequitur meant to divert away from the fact that, bottom line, you're proven for the intellectually dishonest creationist you are.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 1449
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/12/2011 9:34:02 PM

ok, not in even one of the past post did anyone even attempt to come up with empirical evidence for evolution, not just mentioning chromosone union.
the reason I asume?
you can't explain it in your words.
or
takes too long
more like
it doesn't exist

Empirical evidence for evolution is overwhelming.


Empirical
A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective empirical or the adverb empirically. The term refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to, and derived from, our experiences or observations.

See - http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html
http://archaeologyinfo.com/human-evolution/
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/default.htm
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://archaeologyinfo.com/
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey


Empirical
In a second sense "empirical" in science may be synonymous with "experimental." In this sense, an empirical result is an experimental observation. In this context, the term semi-empirical is used for qualifying theoretical methods which use in part basic axioms or postulated scientific laws and experimental results. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods which are purely deductive and based on first principles.

See - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/conover_04
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/936/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11147751/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/scientists-force-evolution-lab/

And for an overview, and references to the literature regarding various observed speciation events organised under headings such as -

Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.
Plants
Animals
Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy
The Fruit Fly Literature
Housefly Speciation Experiments
Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation
....etc etc
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


In light of the above, what is to be made of your claim that 'empirical evidence for evolution does not exist'?
We could be blunt and just call it a lie. Or we might be more generous and describe it as ignorance of the facts. Either way it does you no credit.
But now you know the truth hey? So further claims of 'no empirical evidence' will be revealed for what the are - either wilful ignorance, or corrupt attempts to deceive.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 1450
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/16/2011 12:59:05 PM
Isnt there some mathematical flaw in the concept of evolution though?

I am sure I remember reading something along the lines that if you took a single celled organism and it underwent one step in evolution each 1/1000th of a second since the universe began 13.7 billion years ago it still wouldnt have quite reached the evolutionary level of an earth worm or something along those lines

Theres also the 1000s of creatures we know havent evolved at all for millions of years too

But then mankind has some quite trackable signs of evolving physically in just tens of thousnds of years

So I think that the evolutionary model has many holes in it as far as being a complete hypothesis

That said though, how many holes does the idea that an omipotent being got bored one day and created the entire universe have? As well as just slightly less than zero % proof to actually back up the claim


So as much as I think evolution is only a snippet of an overall picture I would still put it eons ahead of the other option in terms of viable validity
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Evolution.