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
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 76
Debunking creationist mythsPage 4 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)

evolution can't be proven [in my mind] its all still conjecture [as far as I can make the evidence out]


Um...

Horses...
Whales...
Birds...
Bacteria that adapts to attempts to wipe it out...
The flu virus...
Moths that rely on camouflage darkening in soot-filled cities...
Humans...
DNA...
Fossils...

Did you want to know anything else?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 77
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 12:31:49 PM
your going to have to do a little better then that.

I have looked at the bacteria thing, and they were created to adapt for the many different new environments that they end up in. works for me.
as far as I know they adapt with past information to do their "new job" and aren't much suited for anything else.
the new bacteria is compromised from the older one too.
and bacteria is always bacteria.
In my mind I would like to settle the bacteria thing.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 78
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 12:39:13 PM
aremeself, stubbornly persisting on denial doesn't make you right. Just stubborn.

Your only other alternative, it seems, it's magic sky man.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 79
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 12:43:29 PM
did I get something wrong in the bacteria department?
I am learning.
how is calling on my character solving anything?
we are wasting time here.

evolution calls for magic, new information appearing, no?
explain how that is not magic.

 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 80
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 1:03:06 PM

did I get something wrong in the bacteria department?

Yes. Bacterial DNA mutates. Bacteria evolve.

Bacteria can double their population size in under 10 minutes. Each reproduction introduces errors and other mutations of the genetic material. Some bacteria are also sexual, magnifying the genetic variation in each individual. That's plenty of evolutionary opportunity. They do not adapt based on information they already have. Their descendants adapt based on having the most appropriate combinations of novel genes. Those with the best combinations grow and reproduce faster. Those without grow and reproduce more slowly and are more likely to simply die. The "adapted" population will differ genetically from its progenitors.


evolution calls for magic, new information appearing, no?

No.

Evolution is the fact that the inherited code changes. Nothing needs to be added.

Addition IS quite common, and is very useful for increasing the 'options', but it is NOT a requirement of evolution.

Evolution is a fact. Genetic inheritance and genetic change are facts. The concepts are synonymous.

It's ironic that much of the difficulty some people have with ToE is centered misunderstandings and denials of one simple fact the theory exists to explain: organisms inherit change.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 81
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 1:26:54 PM
I'll go back to the books, but:

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

when you say novel, do you mean NEW with new, or past information?

If nothing is added, thats adapting with past information.

NOW you say addition is common but not necessary, ADDITION from where?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 82
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 1:54:27 PM

NOW you say addition is common but not necessary, ADDITION from where?


Additions from each other, from viruses, phages, the environment.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 83
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 2:05:59 PM
Paul...


How is it decided which of the 5 things that are tried "work"?


If you finish reading the rest of the sentence, you'd realize how it's decided which of the 5 tried things 'works'...

Because the other 4 DIE before passing on their genes. That's where the selection part comes in.

Do you know now why evolution always works in the 'right' direction...? It's because whatever survives IS the right direction.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 84
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 2:19:16 PM
rocket, what died, the mutation, or the live, whole being?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 85
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 2:29:56 PM
star, elaborate a bit, if you can, if you want.

so bacteria pick up stuff from the environment that they live in, which is about the best way for them to operate successfully.
thats all information that is there for them to use.

do you not think that I would say and think that they were designed to do that?

we would not be alive if bacteria didn't adapt to new situations.

I don't see what that has to do with evolution of different species.

creation has all that covered, doesn't it?
what am I missing?
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 86
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 2:32:10 PM
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.

In the human body in an hour, one harmful bacterium can become 64. This is also 63 reproductive events in which mutations will occur and be inherited. In two HOURS, that's 5112 bacteria. That's assuming that all survive and all take 10 minutes to reproduce. Those which survive and reproduce fastest will have the greatest numbers. Every time a mutation occurs which creates an advantage, such as a change in a surface protein which prevents recognition by white blood cells, the descendant cells will have that trait and reproduce.

The adaptation is NOT by individuals, but by population. The population adapts because the overall genetic makeup of it changes - the best combinations survive and the worst are weeded out. Evolution does not take years. It takes generations, and species with short generation times evolve fastest.


when you say novel, do you mean NEW with new, or past information?

By "novel" I mean different. It's akin to having a book, written entirely in three letter words and a four letter alphabet. There aren't many different words, and some of them have the same meaning. The true outcome of the book is determined by the sentences.

When the book is copied, a letter here and there is accidentally changed. A skilled editor can easily miss a few such errors. Sometimes the error has no effect because the new word has the same meaning as the old. Sometimes the word changes, which can have subtle or huge impact on the sentence. Sometimes the change converts a word to a period or vice-versa, completely changing at least two sentences.

One very small alteration of the existing 'code' can have a drastic effect. Although the new coding is derived from the old and largely identical to it, the changed portions are neither "old" nor "new". Nothing here has been added or lost, it has been changed and simply does not have the same meaning as what came before. Perhaps a very simple analogy will work:

"Too" ===> simple one-letter error ===> "Two"
Tiny change to something we already had, completely different meaning.


If nothing is added, thats adapting with past information

Not in the sense you imply. Adaptation is an outcome of changes to existing information. The change has to occur for adaptation to be possible. It is not a matter of force-fitting the existing information to new circumstances, but of the existing information CHANGING and allowing new circumstances to be exploited.

Essentially, you're half-right. The past information is used, but the details are not all identical.


NOW you say addition is common but not necessary, ADDITION from where?

I explained this at length to yourself and Sign11, more than once in other threads.

Duplication.

Organisms have two sets of DNA, organized as chromosomes. Reproduction involves a complete duplication of the DNA, followed by division into two cells. That's the basic asexual strategy.

Sexual reproduction adds two steps. The resulting cells now split so that each has only ONE set of DNA. These gamete cells [sperm and ovum] combine with one another to produce a typical cell with two nearly identical DNA sets.

There are plenty of opportunities for errors here. When division occurs, one, multiple, or ALL chromosomes may fail to separate properly. This will result in a cell with duplicates of some or all of its' DNA. You should be able to see that there are several steps at which this can occur. Additionally, the duplication process involves matching chromosomes aligning. When they align, they become cross-linked in places. Normally, this results in just a swap of similar or identical code, but in some cases it causes breaks, with one chromosome losing a chunk to its' mate. The one with the extra piece now has duplicates. A third means by which duplication happens, is via the actual copying of the code, which is done letter by letter. There are numerous examples where a glitch has occured, and the same section gets copied over and over. This would be like burning a CD from an LP, and having the record skip. We know the song on the record is three minutes long, but the one on the CD is ten. If we corrupt the digital version of this, 70% of the errors will take place in that extra seven minutes, and we will end up with a vastly different song.

Stargazer's examples are semi-accurate, but trivial. Where valid, they are all examples of code being "borrowed" or "stolen" from elsewhere. The bulk of additional DNA comes from duplication of existing code.


rocket, what died, the mutation, or the live, whole being?

Both. The mutations are carried solely by the organism, and if one "dies", so does the other.


creation has all that covered, doesn't it?

Um...no. Creation just says "this is so" and does nothing to explain or understand the mechanisms involved, offer any predictability, nor even have any kind of observable testable, consistent cause. Creation does not require any rules or predictability, yet the universe is just FULL of predictability and consistent rules, including the mechanisms and patterns of evolution.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 87
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 2:37:54 PM
Fish - Goddidit doesn't explain the HOW and the WHY. It simply tells the WHAT. Anything that just tells the WHAT and refuses to tell the HOW or the WHY is a COP OUT. I don't question evolution because it explains the HOW and the WHY.


The person that believes God did it has their evidence as well.

Name me one piece of evidence that has not been debunked by Kenneth Miller


you are correct, that's why we are back to what i said, it's a belief.

Anything that says the what and refuses to answer the how and why is not an answer. Let me give you an example.

Creationist line of thinking says, "A murder happened, we don't have to look any further because we know a murder happened" Well, how did the murder happen? "I don't know"

Compared to

Scientific line of thinking says, "A murder happened and here is how it happened, the splatter marks here indicate what type of slashes that the killer used etc etc"
Do you see how simply the line, "A murder happened" is useless because it only says the WHAT and not the HOW and WHY?
You can say a murder happened all day long but it doesnt MEAN anything because it's not an ANSWER.
What IS an answer is an explanation of HOW it happened and WHY it happened.

Creationist - What happened? Murder happened

Scientist - How did it happen? A guy shot another guy in the head. Why did it happen? Drug dispute

Or

How did it happen? An individual stabbed the other guy in the chest. Why did it happen? The guy that was stabbed was sleeping with the perps wife.

See the difference?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 88
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 3:00:18 PM
frogo

don't many more errors happen, but are corrected by a mechanism in the organism?

some slip through, an error.

the changes that happen that are useful, are planned adaptation, thats how bacteria have to work, or we would be dead.

so in essence what you are saying we are all precisely a gonglomeration of errors?

versen and frogo

you think we are all that simple?
you are just looking for an easy answer to get rid of us, it works with most, but not all.
you think I am not honestly trying to figure what evolutionist have?
I can't find it, and if you have it, what is it?
It takes me a while, but I do understand whats going on.

or you can just contribute it to ignorance on my part.

 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 89
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 3:27:15 PM
I'm not arguing with how bacteria work, really.
so far, from what I have seen, it works with MY creation model.

so there is no " brand new" information popping out of nowhere in any evolution thinking then????
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 90
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 3:43:49 PM
Aremeself...

It's the animal that dies, taking its genes with it into oblivion.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 91
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 4:03:05 PM

The false extrapolation of logic that's being continually perpetrated here however, is that these random mutations can accumulate over time to the point where they eventually add up to create some new species.


Umm...sure. So "microevolution but no macroevolution." Typical Creationist/ID reasoning.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 92
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 4:05:19 PM

don't many more errors happen, but are corrected by a mechanism in the organism?

some slip through, an error.

Yes.


the changes that happen that are useful, are planned adaptation, thats how bacteria have to work, or we would be dead.

No.

There is no evidence of planning, nor any reason it would be necessary.

Bacteria live in rather constrained environments for the most part, and don't normally evolve to drastically new situations. In infectious organisms, it often only requires tiny changes in order to adapt. White blood cells are programmed to attack specific proteins. When an antigen appears, antibodies are created which are basically chemical keys which match up with the surface proteins of the antigen. There are often multiple different surface proteins, and some may be identical [as in cancer cells] to those of the host. For the bacterium, being identified means death, by way of a hungry white cell. However, it takes time to create antibodies, and in that time [several days], a single bacterium can reproduce to a population of millions. With all the possible mutations, it is quite possible [and documented] that a one-letter change in the DNA will result in an altered surface protein. After three days, in which the human body has been working to identify the original protein and ramp up to wipe out the infection...one cell in millions appears, which the body has no warning flag for. Once the body starts fighting off those with the original protein, the bacteria with the altered protein are still there and now thriving.

Meanwhile, you take an antibiotic which interferes with the growth of the bacteria. In this case, you don't start with the antibiotic until you know you have an infection, which means you have billions of bacteria, each slightly different from the others. Somewhere in there, one bacterium has evolved an immunity or ability to digest the antibiotic. That one bacterium is at first unimportant - it's one among billions and by itself will do you no harm, and it has more or less the same surface proteins as the others.

Ever wonder why there are concerns about proper use of antibiotics? Well, antibiotics mostly work by impairing the growth of bacteria, NOT by killing them. You have to impair them long enough for your body to be faster at killing them than they are at reproducing. If you take a partial dose, some of them are wiped out, but those which remain resume breeding. Including the resistant one. Doing this results in the resistant forms replacing the previous bacteria. Taking the antibiotics properly and completely stops the growth of all but that small immune population, and your immune system can wipe those out too. to be wiped out. Likewise, using antibiotics when they are not needed [such as for viruses], will lead to small existing populations of bacteria being replaced by immune ones. The immune bacteria only have an advantage when you add antibiotics which hurt their non-immune relatives. Thus, the immune populations grow, leading to later harmful versions developing.

ALSO meanwhile, your body cranks up the temperature. Fevers are a natural way of killing infections by overheating the infectious organisms. Proteins are heat-sensitive, each having temperatures at which it functions best. If the temperature is too high, they denature and the cell dies. Essentially, the body attempts to cook the infection away. Obviously, this can be a delicate procedure, since it has to work quickly or it will hurt the body as well. Out of the billions of bacteria now present, ANOTHER one has a simple error in its' DNA which produces a protein which is less heat-sensitive.

You now have three simple genetic mutations present among billions of cells, each of which has a particular adaptive advantage. This has occured in the space of only a few days, in which you may not have even realized you were sick. On the plus side, your body also has at least three ways in which the infection is being fought: immune response, fever, and antibiotics. Odds are, each of these mutant bacteria is still subject to the other two methods. If the immune response fails [AIDS for example], the fever fails [your body can't handle it, so you take anti-fever medications], and you don't take your antibiotics properly, then each one of these variants will reproduce and grow in number, leading to still more mutations which might help them. If they're sexual bacteria, they may actually exchange genes, and you'll end up with a superbug with ALL the bells and whistles.

Bit of a digression, I know, but there is no planning involved. Simply a high rate of reproduction and mutation, and selective pressures. The hosts always have a slower reproductive rate, so bacteria will always have the upper hand in terms of rate of adaptation. The same principals apply to free-living bacteria, whether it's an ability to withstand prolonged drying, freezing, or heating, the adaptations are mainly simple chemical alterations.

For higher organisms, most of the changes take longer to add up, and are indirect. That is, simple chemical changes in complex chemical processes, leading to more obvious physical outcomes [cascade effects]. Because the DNA is much more complex in higher organisms, more changes are needed [and tolerated] before the results are visible. Combinations of subtle changes by sexual reproduction and isolation of gene pools accelerates this, as do natural selective influences. A lot of the observable differences between species, and even their sexual isolation from one another, are not adaptive, but coincidental. Little changes which did no harm accumulated, and when populations became isolated from one another, such changes were no longer shared. Even subtle changes in color and pattern can provide selective advantage without being complicated. Thereafter, changes in vision, hearing, bone structure, etc., which offer further advantage, can continue to develop slowly and randomly.


so in essence what you are saying we are all a gonglomeration of errors?

Sort of. The chemicals which copy themselves successfully, obviously continue to do so. If they don't, they disappear from the equation. The changes which occur are largely random. Whether those changes survive depends on luck, on not being mortally harmful, and on highly diverse [but not really random] selective pressures. The number of variations available at any time is vast - look at how quickly bacterial populations grow or how large the human population is. Selection acts on all of those.

Human evolution, by the way, has actually VASTLY accelerated in the past few thousand years. The genetic differences among modern humans is far greater than would be expected compared to the differences of a few thousand years ago. This is likely due in part to our massive population growth and spread to most environments and diets on the planet. The very fact we have recognizable geographic races is evidence of this evolution. Our status as a single species is probably tenuous and only maintained because we can and do travel and interbreed worldwide. In the long run, however, different races and cultures do often tend to marry among themselves, increasing the liklihood that we will split into several species at some point in the future. This would be hastened by any global war or disaster which led to prolonged isolation between groups.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 93
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 4:14:56 PM
As Stephen C. Meyer pointed out in his debate with Peter Ward, these genetic mutations generate no new information for the system.

Lovely example of a popular creationist myth. In this case, it deliberately ignores those "mutations" which DO increase the amount of DNA.

Given the number of times this particular poster has fronted the argument and ignored evidence to the contrary, also a fine example of another popular creationist fallacy: argumentum ad nauseum
Debunked ages ago, and several times.

First of all, new DNA is not required to achieve drastically different results, although there are certainly limits.

Second, there is no shortage of "new" DNA produced. Gene and chromosome duplication are not new concepts, and both are factual and abundant. Evidence that many mutations are derived from duplicated genes is also abundant, with the classic example being the HOX family of genes.


The false extrapolation of logic that's being continually perpetrated here however, is that these random mutations can accumulate over time to the point where they eventually add up to create some new species.

Not only logically consistent, but in complete agreement with the evidence. Rate x Time = total change. It doesn't matter what the rate or length of time is, the equation is the same. The creationist argument requires arbitrary changes of the equation depending on arbitrary selection of values of the variables. OOPS - too much change, gotta get a new equation!


The scientific evidence, including everything from observations in nature to genetic manipulation in lab experiments shows:
Mutation 1+Mutation2+Mutation3= weakness, death and destruction of organism

Take your pick - lie or willfull ignorance. I've seen plenty of evidence to refute this. Of course, I make the mistake of actually LOOKING at the evidence, rather than the dogma and blinkers of ignoring it.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 94
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 4:45:08 PM
frogo

yes, like you say, programmed, all things seem to be programmed.

it all sounds like creation isnt perfect at the moment, devolving.

theres no evolution in there, not for me.

at the end you go and extrapolate human evolution out of how bacteria work, whats with that???

are you saying that I couldn't make a baby with someone in "biblical" times????
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 95
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 4:51:32 PM
so, once again, is there brand new information, and if so where does this "brand new" information come from?

I see no "brand new" information.

Its not clear!
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 96
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 5:02:13 PM

Otherwise there has to be some mechanism to make sure that only the proper mutaions survive.

Environment, AKA nature.

otherwise who or what is it that is making sure that each mutation that survives is advantageous?

The "what" is environmental = nature.

I guess that would take something relatively intelligent.

Nope, the causality (nature) is the theory part that explains the observed fact part.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 97
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 5:09:46 PM
The duplication itself does not add anything new, although organisms which have double the DNA generally have larger cells, while those which are 3n are often parthenogenetic.


What increase in the DNA that you're referring to results in new and useful information that is not only conserved by the organism, but is further built upon and improved by subsequent random mutations?

Any. As pointed out several times, HOX is one [several] such example, in which a single gene has been duplicated many times, the duplicates have changed and been duplicated again. This is a fundamental family of genes found throughout the animal kingdom and well-known in how it functions. These genes are responsible for segmentation and development of segmented body parts. Increase the copies, increase the segments. Alter the copy, alter the segment. Continue the process and you get limbs, antennae, jaws, etc. It's only refusal to look which prevents seeing this. The first mutations of this type were identified in 1894. Similar mutations in fruit flies were studied in the 1940's. Bit before your time, so you missed the news?


There's a Nobel prize awaiting your answer

1995 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. It's already been given out, at least once.


If there is a mutation error in this gene duplication process as was discussed in an earlier post like with chromosome21 and Downs Syndrome

Um...no.

Trisomy 21 by itself causes Down's Syndrome. No further mutation is required. However, it's pure fallacy to extrapolate from this single harmful abberation and conclude that all such are harmful. This is demonstrably false. Would you like me to provide a lengthy list of organisms possessing duplicate chromosomes? How about those which have chromosomes which show clear evidence of being *past* duplicates which have mutated since then? How about DNA loops [not including HOX] - it's not as if every human doesn't have THOSE. I know you will ignore the list regardless.

Put your head in the sand all you want - the facts are there should you choose to actually see them.


More random mutations result in more damage, and the system dies.

HOX alone belies this, and there are many additional examples.

Hyla versicolor - complete doubling of the chromosomes, resulting from hybridization between H.chrysoscelis and two unknown extinct species
Ceratophrys ornata - quadruple the chromosomes of C.cranwelli
Pseudepidalea spp. - many variations, from normal DNA complement to 4 times
Xenopus and Silurana spp. - many variations, up to 4 times, as well as loss of individual chromosomes
Chromosome loops - found in all animals, and presumably in all multicellular life

Typically, organisms which differ in chromosome copies [ie, copies of full sets] are designated as distinct species, due to reproductive isolation, even if they lack any other differences. They are usually identified as separate species only after examining their chromosomes. There are examples of interbreeding. Variations in numbers of chromosomes [differing numbers of pairs] often indicate distinct species, but there do seem to be some species which tolerate this somehow.

Back to your point. Your generalization is blatantly wrong. Inconvenient as it is, the evidence disagrees with you.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 98
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 6:03:56 PM
I have a question. How many mutations would it take, give or take a few, to evolve from a single cell organism to modern man?

Around 3 700 000 000 years worth.

Most of that time involves single-celled organisms doubling their populations every 10-20 minutes, with multiple mutations and errors in each and every one of them. The number of mutational "experiments" performed between then and now is literally countless. More than 5 million species of BEETLE are believed to exist, each containing many breeding individuals, each with many mutations in its genome. An estimated 99% of all life is extinct, but each and every species along the way had many individuals with many mutations.

Additionally, the length of time required is the same as that required for Entamoeba invadens, and for all 5-8 million beetle species. It's a post hoc fallacy. We're just not that special.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 99
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 6:32:53 PM
Paul K - Let me ask you a question. What are the odds that you out of the trillion to the trillionth power of sperm and the trillians of eggs out there, that you were born? What are the chances? It's mathematically impossible, am I right? Yet, you are still here. Now, how many ancestors do you have? Do you know? No? That's what it's like asking how many mutations evolved. We simply dont know nor is that knowledge relevant to the legitimacy of evolution.
 BuzWeaver
Joined: 7/7/2007
Msg: 100
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/18/2009 6:41:07 PM
Ironically I've yet to hear any scientist either in the academic or professional field give a definitive answer that quantifies origin.

The issue with science whether you want to haggle over evolution or other theory still leaves science with a problem, origin. What scientist have discovered or will discover would have already existed. So unless science can transcend time, they are just flattering themselves by identifying what has already been created.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths