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  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 278
view profile
History
Debunking creationist mythsPage 12 of 24    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
can you prove that your claim was a question ?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 279
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 10:32:44 PM

can you prove that your claim was a question ?


I cannot. Your (rug doctor) turn.
right. but you are wrong in saying that it is my turn.
Since you cannot, then you might consider attempting to prove that I cannot be more specific, as was asked of you previously.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 280
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 10:38:59 PM

Rug, ah, doctor, I'm still able to find "common ground," if you're willing to bend that way. However, you seem to still be contemplating as to whether "toe jam" is stinky or not. Other folks have more serious problems to contemplate, now, don't ya think? I mean, progeny, and prayin' that they have "good genes" that will allow them to become grandmas or grandpas. But I reckon that's not your issue, is it?

You can consider this form of argumentation to have taken a path toward, "pathos," but hey, all's fair in the pursuit of truth ...
Krebby, it's taken a turn to bathos, and eeek ! He's fallen in the water !

anyway, I think you might understand what I'm doing, a bit better, if you look at other questions I've asked.
I can let go of Verzen's errors, if he doesn't want to pursue the issue.
But we have other unsupported claims. I'm particularly interested in Frogo's claims. I think I have something of interest on that topic . Interesting to me, and I hope to you as well.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 281
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 10:40:40 PM

An assertion is a claim.

It is not another's task to do what one needs to do, in the realm of being more specific, as was asked of you previously.
You've already admitted that you DO have an agenda.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 282
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 10:45:03 PM

Message:

Yes, darn it, my agenda is to get closer to truth value. Gosh darn it, aint' that a shame?
What is a shame is that you think that I still need to be more specific, when you have already answered.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 283
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 10:47:05 PM

I'm listenin' --- ga hed on'e. What are Frogo's issues?
I've quoted what I want answered. I think it best to allow him to show his support for his claims.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 284
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 10:54:53 PM

Frogo said:


the nature of bacteria is that they act fast, or we wouldn't live.
they have to change for new, and before unknown jobs




They don't act fast. They reproduce fast.


They do not adapt based on information they already have.
I think that claims such as these, need support. That's my issue with these claims.

as well, showing that they "reproduce fast" seems to not support a denial that they "act fast".

Perhaps you might find this article of interest in relation to the claims.

http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/papers/meaning%20based.pdf

it's a nice article in any case, nein ?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 285
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 11:06:16 PM

Acting fast could be the defeat of its own survival, as the "carrying capacity" of "munificence" of its ecological niche would be reached faster.
Certainly. Are not bacteria capable of that ?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 286
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 11:09:59 PM
frogo already stated that they reproduce "fast". so that is not really the issue. Somehow he determined that bacteria can reproduce fast, but not act fast.
He was replying to this assertion
the nature of bacteria is that they act fast, or we wouldn't live.
they have to change for new, and before unknown jobs
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 287
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 11:17:42 PM
That's good information.
I am requesting Frogo to support his assertion that they do not act fast. And that they do not adapt using information they already have.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 288
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 11:21:20 PM
I was never in a corner; no apologies necessary, but for your intent. Accepted.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 289
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 11:25:17 PM

Why do ya have to go around and focus on minutia?
remember, the Devil Incarnate is in the details
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 290
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 12:02:54 AM

It's not about "information that they already have." It's about variation on an existing genetic structure.
yes, but the question I have is whether they adapt or not based on information they already have. It's not about "evolving", for this question, but about first establishing that no adapting goes on. Then we can look further at evolution.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 291
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 12:05:03 AM

K, peace, bro ... I reckon it's early in the morn now, maybe there's a good classic movie on AMC or something .... I have trouble sleepin' ... my mind never rests .. gosh darn it ...
tried GABA ? good for retiring those neurons after 12 hours staring at the pc screen.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 292
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 10:06:47 AM
Let's say that this new sequencing proves itself superior to the sequencing that's already out there -- That's "Selection." Let's now assume that this new sequencing has the ability to sustain and reproduce itself -- That's "Retention." The foregoing are the three basic steps of "evolution" -- a very tough "row to hoe," as it should be for the continuance of "survival of the species.
Now that you've had a look at my questions for Frogo, let's look at the statemnt shown above, shall we ?

My question is this: Is that the only way in which the "Selection" portion of Evolution happens ? i.e. a sequence proving itself superior ?

If so, how does it prove itself superior, and on what level of Selection ?

Should we assume that you are talking about it being superior for the individual , only, or does it also need to be superior for the Group, Population, Species , Life, Earth, or Universe ?
How about for the levels for Selection , of Organ, Tissue, Cell, Molecule ?

which levels of Selection apply ?
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 293
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 10:23:54 AM
There are several factors involved in the concept of selection... a prey animal that runs a little faster than other members of its' group is more likely to survive long enough to pass its' genes on to the next generation - its' ability to escape being eaten is 'selected' for. That's individual selection...

Going a little deeper - if said prey animal could run faster because it had slightly longer legs, then longer legs is the trait that's being selected for. Alternately, it could have a more efficient heart or lungs - so that it doesn't tire as quickly. Thus, greater endurance is the trait being selected. That's selection at the organ/tissue level.

And from there, we can deduce that an improved ability of cells to convert food into energy will come into play - after all, an animal that doesn't have to eat as much to do the same amount of effort is going to survive longer during periods of scarcity. That brings selection to the cellular level.

Thus, it seems a little odd to try and consider different 'levels' to the concept of selection - since they're all factors in the same process...
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 294
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 10:28:23 AM

Thus, it seems a little odd to try and consider different 'levels' to the concept of selection - since they're all factors in the same process...
they are indeed. that is why I question statements that apply "Selection Argument" only to the individual. It's foolish Dawkinsism; Individual Selection, only.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 295
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 10:33:44 AM

Good Mornin'
...Along comes something called a "fire ant," which was not exactly fodder for the Horned Toads. The "munificence" for them "fire ants" was abundant, therefore their rate of growth was tremendous. They spread like wildfire.
They were a subject that was of interest to one child , who studied them and later became a famous biologist. EO Wilson and Group Selection

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/wil2bio-1


At age seven, while fishing, the fin of a spiny fish scratched his right eye, permanently impairing his distance vision and depth perception. He enjoyed acute near-distance vision with his left eye, and used it to examine insect life at close range. By age 11, he was determined to become an entomologist. When a wartime shortage of pins interrupted his collecting of flies, he turned his attention to ants, which could be stored in jars, and set himself the task of cataloguing every species of ant to be found in Alabama.

E.O. Wilson Biography Photo
At age 13, Wilson discovered a colony of non-native fire ants near the docks in Mobile, Alabama and reported his finding to the authorities. By the time he entered the University of Alabama, the fire ant, a potential threat to agriculture, was spreading beyond Mobile, and the State of Alabama requested that Wilson carry out a survey of the ant's progress. The resulting study, completed in 1949, was his first scientific publication. Wilson received his master's degree at the University of Alabama in 1950, and after studying briefly at the University of Tennessee, transferred to Harvard for doctoral studies.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 296
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 10:50:44 AM
RE Msg: 497 by Krebby2001:

I'd like to respond to you, as you don't seem to be too antagonistic over the issues of evolution vs creationism, or religion in general.

From what I've read, it's become very clear to me that creationists don't see any particular theory as being necessarily wrong, as long as that it stays within science, and doesn't start being used as a basis to make claims about other people's beliefs that they are stupidly wrong, and that it isn't used as a basis to promote a way of life that is against those people's way of life.

Say you're an American in World War One. Say that you capture a member of the German High Command, who tells you that the only reason the Germans attacked the world, was because they believed in evolution. Say that you want to tell your friends. But he crushes a Cyanide capsule in his teeth, and commits suicide before you come back. Your friends think you're nuts. They honestly think that the Germans are creationist nutters who are only fighting because they DON'T believe in evolution. You tell them that the Germans are actually evolutionists. You tell them that if someone doesn't figure out why this is happening, that worse might happen. But everyone thinks you're insane.

Then, after a while, you get sent home. You think things might be better. But then you discover that a dear friend of yours, Carrie Buck, got herself pregnant, and decided to keep the child. You support her in her decision. But some people start saying that according to evolution, that single mums are just people who are not adapted to society. If not for our charity, they'd be dead. So we have to treat them accordingly, in order to not disturb the natural balance of evolution. We might be willing to ensure she has food to eat. But in nature, she would not be able to breed. So she should be sterilised, to prevent an explosion of these mal-adapted individuals, just like we'd see in evolution. They put this to the courts, and the courts side with the sterilisers. They forcibly sterilise her. You protest this is the opposite of Darwin's theory. They just laugh at you, and call you a stupid creationist, who is ignorant of science.

Then you find out that hundreds of people are being sterilised each year, by these same people. Again, you protest. But these people laugh at you. When you protest to others, they say you are a creationist, and you are simply holding to your primitive religious myths, because you are afraid of real scientific knowledge.

The world calls you a troglodyte, for being in favour of what you consider to be evolution, and against those who seem to use evolution as a platform their military and economic ambitions.

You try to reason with people. But they only seem to respond to the simplistic arguments of your adversaries. Yet, you see that there are nutters who abandon reason, and preach just as simplistic arguments, but ones in much more agreement with your view. You have 3 options:

1) Agree with the social Darwinists, and just use people as guinea pigs and cannon fodder.

2) Agree with the nutters, and satisfy yourself that the ends justify the means, that at least this way, someone is fighting the social Darwinists, and will ensure they won't be allowed to treat people like food for their young.

3) Argue for reason, and find that no-one cares. The social Darwinists have their way, and people are used as guinea pigs and cannon fodder.

There might be more options. But consider the question. Realise that there are serious consequences of what option you choose, and that people will suffer terribly due to your decision.

It might be useful for you to consider this (hypothetical) viewpoint.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 297
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 10:52:47 AM

My thought is that selection does not occur on the level of "genotype" but rather "phenotype"
That is acceptable to the majority of people pondering it, I believe. I have some further questions on the use of "genotype as to phenotype", and what is "Phenotype".

it's always relative to a given environment. Hence, I think "environmental niche" might be a better term than something like "superior"
I agree somewhat. I think Krebby is touching on this with his "munificence" argument.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 298
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 11:01:22 AM
scorpiomover said: [whole post] I sympathize with that individual :) thanks.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 299
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 11:04:07 AM
RE Msg: 502 by loverofwisdom:
So I'll throw this question into the pot...

Now "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are two ways of describing changes in the genetic pool. One is claimed to be related to "speciation" and other is not. Yet they also operate on the same principles just viewed on a different scale. How does "speciation" occur if there are no different processes involved for a new species to emerge?
It depends who you ask.

Some people regard that as a problem with evolution, that it's clear that speciation should occur on the microevolutionary level, so we should be seeing new species every single day.

Some regard that as a proof of evolution, that since speciation is expected to occur in macroevolution, that everything that is supposed to happen with microevolution, is also speciation, and hence everything is speciation. So they claim that everything is a conclusive proof of evolution.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 300
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 11:08:33 AM
loverofwisdom,

if phenotype is derived from what we can observe (in this case phenotype of an individual), and if we can observe genetic material, is not a gene that is different, name-able, as a "phenotype" ?
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 301
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 11:23:36 AM
scorpio
From what I've read, it's become very clear to me that creationists don't see any particular theory as being necessarily wrong, as long as that it stays within science, and doesn't start being used as a basis to make claims about other people's beliefs that they are stupidly wrong...
I agree. And on a similar note, members of the flat earth society don't see any theory being necessarily wrong, so long is it doesn't show evidence that the earth is round. Sometimes people's beliefs are proven wrong. We do them no favors by remaining silent about it.
...and that it isn't used as a basis to promote a way of life that is against those people's way of life.
Which evolution obviously doesn't do. It explains a lot about life, but doesn't tell you how to live it. Religion on the other hand....

So she should be sterilised, to prevent an explosion of these mal-adapted individuals
Ah yes, eugenics, WW1 Germany - move over Kirk Cameron, we have someone else who can compare evolution to Hitler.
They forcibly sterilise her. You protest this is the opposite of Darwin's theory.
What a foolish protest. Its wrong morally and ethically, not because of the ToE.

Your metaphors are absurd. If you didn't like chefs you could make up a story about a bunch of chefs performing mass murder to use their organs for pies, if you didn't like firemen you could make up a story about them burning people alive, and if you don't like evolution you can make up a story about eugenics, and by the time you're done you'll have an absurd story that portrays good people in a sickening way and it will make no point whatsoever.

loverofwisdom
Now "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are two ways of describing changes in the genetic pool. One is claimed to be related to "speciation" and other is not. Yet they also operate on the same principles just viewed on a different scale. How does "speciation" occur if there are no different processes involved for a new species to emerge?
We know speciation occurs since we've seen it happens countless times. Micro and macro evolution are the same thing - the only difference is scale. Macroevolution is nothing more than a lot of microevolution. The way I look at it is microevolution are changes within a species, as those changes add up it leads to macroevolution which tends to refer to changes between species.
So what then is a species? How do we tell if we have a new one or not?
Speciation occurs when a parent species splits into two (or more) reproductively-isolated populations, each of which then accumulates changes from sexual reproduction and/or random mutation (in addition to any other various contributors to genetic change) until the populations are no longer capable of interbreeding. ~http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php?title=Speciation&redirect=no
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 302
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/29/2009 11:54:38 AM

All of your, ah, "alternatives" have Social Darwinism as a defining, and critical element. In my circle, we call that a "weasel" argument. Wouldn't ya think?
to me, not a weasel argument, as we are given teh protagonaist's desire to be truthful about what he thinks he has found out.

One of his problems being that he is opposing those whose salaries depend on them not understanding, and the other is that he is not differentiating properly between Social Darwinism and the "ism" of those who would twist Scientific findings to suit their own Eugenicist program.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths