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
 lagoda
Joined: 11/20/2009
Msg: 43
To God or Not to GodPage 6 of 9    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
Frivolous yes. Genius certainly not.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 45
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 6:43:01 AM

BTW, they are both dumb as rocks and eat garbage, so apparently they are not high on the evolutionary scale, IMO

IMO, you have no idea what the evolutionary scale is.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 47
view profile
History
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 8:33:27 AM

Archeopteryx is considered the first transitional link between dino and bird.

You don't say. Can you tell us what the process is that would take a land animal give it feathers, wings and other various features necessary for flight?.

The process is called... E v o l u t i o n.
 rpl55
Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 49
view profile
History
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 9:14:31 AM
Microevolution has been proven - macroevolution, however, still has many problems as a theory.

mejehoward said:


Archeopteryx is considered the first transitional link between dino and bird.


That was once indeed the case - but no more. The archaeopteryx can no longer be properly considered a transitional link.



"Archaeopteryx was simply a feathered and presumably volant [flying] dinosaur. Theories regarding the subsequent steps that led to the modern avian condition need to be reevaluated." --Erickson, Gregory, et al. October 2009. Was Dinosaurian Physiology Inherited by Birds? Reconciling Slow Growth in Archaeopteryx. PLoS ONE, Vol. 4, Issue 10, e7390.


and


"Microscopic imaging of bone structure... shows that this famously feathered fossil grew much slower than living birds and more like non-avian dinosaurs." "Living birds mature very quickly and grow really, really fast", researchers say. "Dinosaurs had a very different metabolism from today's birds. It would take years for individuals to mature, and we found evidence for this same pattern in Archaeopteryx and its closest relatives". "The team outlines a growth curve that indicates that Archaeopteryx reached adult size in about 970 days, that none of the known Archaeopteryx specimens are adults (confirming previous speculation), and that adult Archaeopteryx were probably the size of a raven, much larger than previously thought." "We now know that the transition into true birds -- physiologically and metabolically -- happened well after Archaeopteryx." --October 2009. Archaeopteryx Lacked Rapid Bone Growth, the Hallmark of Birds. American Museum of Natural History, funded science online news


Science marches on.

RPL
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 50
view profile
History
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 2:42:47 PM

lyingcheat said:

The process is called... E v o l u t i o n.



bestdateyet said:

I rest my case. Apparently this individual slept through school. Probably still has Led Zeppelin and Farrah Fawcett posters in the bedroom.


Apparently, according to OP, if lyingcheat had been paying attention in school he would know that it has nothing to do with evolution.

But wait, according to OP, if lyingcheat had been paying attention in school, he would be being indoctrinated with the "junk science" of evolution, which is being taught to us poor sheeple everywhere.

But wait there's still more. According to OP, the reason he knows that evolution is a "junk science" is because he paid attention in school, graduate of Yale apparently.

So which one is it man? Is every school (with the apparent exception of what ever high school you went to and Yale) indoctrinating us poor sheeple, or are you just full of $%#@.

Yale:

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology:

http://www.eeb.yale.edu/ugrad/courses.htm

I failed to find the course labeled “Evolution is Bull$%#@”
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 52
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 3:18:29 PM

Mutations have never had a + outcome. This has even been proven in the lab. They either render the organism severely deformed, sickly or dead...

Can you please provide a link to the study you are citing.


That said, mutations occur all the time and depending on environmental or social condition may or may not be detrimental or may make no definable difference.

To make a statement that mutations have never had a positive outcome speaks to your lack of understand of mutations.



Examples of beneficial mutation copied from web search:

A specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes. The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One theory for the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People who had this mutation were able to survive infection; thus, its frequency in the population increased. It could also explain why this mutation is not found in Africa where the bubonic plague never reached. Newer theory says the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation has been caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.

Mutations create variation within the gene pool. Less favorable (or deleterious) mutations can be reduced in frequency in the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (beneficial or advantageous) mutations may accumulate and result in adaptive evolutionary changes. For example, a butterfly may produce offspring with new mutations. The majority of these mutations will have no effect; but one might change the color of one of the butterfly's offspring, making it harder (or easier) for predators to see. If this color change is advantageous, the chance of this butterfly surviving and producing its own offspring are a little better, and over time the number of butterflies with this mutation may form a larger percentage of the population.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 55
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 3:46:46 PM
Your fingers broke?. You know anything about mutation?.

If you want to claim a study says "X" then provide a link to said study.




Show me a positive mutation that comes about in the natural world.

I gave two examples.

Are your eyes broke or did the big words confuse you?





The example given above was for a very minor change, in order to evolve from an ape to a human, the amount of such breaks and re-arrangements would literally have to number in the millions, would they not? Maybe millions would be too little ?

Humans did not evolve from apes.

Understanding this will help you understand evolution.



 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 57
view profile
History
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 3:52:17 PM
Paul K:



Then take the time that we have solid knowledge about humans, for the last 4 to 6 thousand years, how much "eveolution" has occured, and if that is not enough time, then evolutionist are running out of time......... (pun intended)


Read post #77
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 59
view profile
History
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 4:09:28 PM
At least we all know what we are arguing against now.

"Creation Science or scientific creationism[1] is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.[2][3] Its most vocal proponents are fundamentalist Christians in the United States who seek to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution.[4] The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in "creation ex nihilo"; the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 10,000 years; the belief that mankind and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed "baraminological" kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth.[5] As a result, creation science also challenges the geologic and astrophysical evidence for the age and origins of Earth and Universe, which creation scientists acknowledge are irreconcilable to the account in the Book of Genesis.[4] Creation science proponents often refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" or as "Darwinian evolution".

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that Creation Science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[6][7] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts."

Who is the real person being indoctrinated here?
 Stray__Cat
Joined: 7/12/2006
Msg: 60
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 4:09:53 PM
If you need a God.....
pick one out.

If you don't.....
be one.

:-P
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 61
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 4:13:59 PM

Please explain the + side of this mutation?

It has already been done and pointed out to you twice, yet you choose to ignore it as I am sure it is because you can not refute it.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 64
view profile
History
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 4:44:42 PM
I give up. I'm going with the pigeon theory, and washing my hand of it.
 Stray__Cat
Joined: 7/12/2006
Msg: 65
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 4:47:50 PM
Well the beef you eat is a mutated ox.
The chicken you eat is a mutated wild bird.
Wheat is merely a mutated grass.

breeding for food,
or selectively propagating plants....
is mutating.


What is so hard to understand?
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 66
view profile
History
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 5:04:35 PM
Paul K:

New York Times:

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html?pagewanted=all

"Ten thousand years ago, people in southern China began to cultivate rice and quickly made an all-too-tempting discovery — the cereal could be fermented into alcoholic liquors. Carousing and drunkenness must have started to pose a serious threat to survival because a variant gene that protects against alcohol became almost universal among southern Chinese and spread throughout the rest of China in the wake of rice cultivation.
Multimedia

The variant gene rapidly degrades alcohol to a chemical that is not intoxicating but makes people flush, leaving many people of Asian descent a legacy of turning red in the face when they drink alcohol.

The spread of the new gene, described in January by Bing Su of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, is just one instance of recent human evolution and in particular of a specific population’s changing genetically in response to local conditions.

Scientists from the Beijing Genomics Institute last month discovered another striking instance of human genetic change. Among Tibetans, they found, a set of genes evolved to cope with low oxygen levels as recently as 3,000 years ago. This, if confirmed, would be the most recent known instance of human evolution.

Many have assumed that humans ceased to evolve in the distant past, perhaps when people first learned to protect themselves against cold, famine and other harsh agents of natural selection. But in the last few years, biologists peering into the human genome sequences now available from around the world have found increasing evidence of natural selection at work in the last few thousand years, leading many to assume that human evolution is still in progress.

“I don’t think there is any reason to suppose that the rate has slowed down or decreased,” says Mark Stoneking, a population geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

So much natural selection has occurred in the recent past that geneticists have started to look for new ways in which evolution could occur very rapidly. Much of the new evidence for recent evolution has come from methods that allow the force of natural selection to be assessed across the whole human genome. This has been made possible by DNA data derived mostly from the Hap Map, a government project to help uncover the genetic roots of complex disease. The Hap Map contains samples from 11 populations around the world and consists of readings of the DNA at specific sites along the genome where variations are common.

One of the signatures of natural selection is that it disturbs the undergrowth of mutations that are always accumulating along the genome. As a favored version of a gene becomes more common in a population, genomes will look increasingly alike in and around the gene. Because variation is brushed away, the favored gene’s rise in popularity is called a sweep. Geneticists have developed several statistical methods for detecting sweeps, and hence of natural selection in action.
About 21 genome-wide scans for natural selection had been completed by last year, providing evidence that 4,243 genes — 23 percent of the human total — were under natural selection. This is a surprisingly high proportion, since the scans often miss various genes that are known for other reasons to be under selection. Also, the scans can see only recent episodes of selection — probably just those that occurred within the last 5,000 to 25,000 years or so. The reason is that after a favored version of a gene has swept through the population, mutations start building up in its DNA, eroding the uniformity that is evidence of a sweep.

Unfortunately, as Joshua M. Akey of the University of Washington in Seattle, pointed out last year in the journal Genome Research, most of the regions identified as under selection were found in only one scan and ignored by the 20 others. The lack of agreement is “sobering,” as Dr. Akey put it, not least because most of the scans are based on the same Hap Map data.

From this drunken riot of claims, however, Dr. Akey believes that it is reasonable to assume that any region identified in two or more scans is probably under natural selection. By this criterion, 2,465 genes, or 13 percent, have been actively shaped by recent evolution. The genes are involved in many different biological processes, like diet, skin color and the sense of smell.

A new approach to identifying selected genes has been developed by Anna Di Rienzo at the University of Chicago. Instead of looking at the genome and seeing what turns up, Dr. Di Rienzo and colleagues have started with genes that would be likely to change as people adopted different environments, modes of subsistence and diets, and then checked to see if different populations have responded accordingly.

She found particularly strong signals of selection in populations that live in polar regions, in people who live by foraging, and in people whose diets are rich in roots and tubers. In Eskimo populations, there are signals of selection in genes that help people adapt to cold. Among primitive farming tribes, big eaters of tubers, which contain little folic acid, selection has shaped the genes involved in synthesizing folic acid in the body, Dr. Di Rienzo and colleagues reported in May in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The fewest signals of selection were seen among people who live in the humid tropics, the ecoregion where the ancestral human population evolved. “One could argue that we are adapted to that and that most signals are seen when people adapt to new environments,” Dr. Di Rienzo said in an interview.

One of the most visible human adaptations is that of skin color. Primates have unpigmented skin beneath their fur. But when humans lost their fur, perhaps because they needed bare skin to sweat efficiently, they developed dark skin to protect against ultraviolet light.

Coloring the skin may sound simple, but nature requires at least 25 different genes to synthesize, package and distribute the melanin pigment that darkens the skin and hair. The system then had to be put into reverse when people penetrated the northern latitudes of Europe and Asia and acquired lighter skin, probably to admit more of the sunlight required to synthesize vitamin D.

Several of the 25 skin genes bear strong signatures of natural selection, but natural selection has taken different paths to lighten people’s skin in Europe and in Asia. A special version of the golden gene, so called because it turns zebrafish a rich yellow color, is found in more than 98 percent of Europeans but is very rare in East Asians. In them, a variant version of a gene called DCT may contribute to light skin. Presumably, different mutations were available in each population for natural selection to work on. The fact that the two populations took independent paths toward developing lighter skin suggests that there was not much gene flow between them.

East Asians have several genetic variants that are rare or absent in Europeans and Africans. Their hair has a thicker shaft. A version of a gene called EDAR is a major determinant of thicker hair, which may have evolved as protection against cold, say a team of geneticists led by Ryosuke Kimura of Tokai University School of Medicine in Japan.

Most East Asians also have a special form of a gene known as ABCC11, which makes the cells of the ear produce dry earwax. Most Africans and Europeans, on the other hand, possess the ancestral form of the gene, which makes wet earwax. It is hard to see why dry earwax would confer a big survival advantage, so the Asian version of the gene may have been selected for some other property, like making people sweat less, says a team led by Koh-ichiro Yoshiura of Nagasaki University.

Most variation in the human genome is neutral, meaning that it arose not by natural selection but by processes like harmless mutations and the random shuffling of the genome between generations. The amount of this genetic diversity is highest in African populations. Diversity decreases steadily the further a population has migrated from the African homeland, since each group that moved onward carried away only some of the diversity of its parent population. This steady decline in diversity shows no discontinuity between one population and the next, and has offered no clear explanation as to why one population should differ much from another. But selected genes show a different pattern: Evidence from the new genome-wide tests for selection show that most selective pressures are focused on specific populations.

One aspect of this pattern is that there seem to be more genes under recent selection in East Asians and Europeans than in Africans, possibly because the people who left Africa were then forced to adapt to different environments. “It’s a reasonable inference that non-Africans were becoming exposed to a wide variety of novel climates,” says Dr. Stoneking of the Max Planck Institute.

The cases of natural selection that have been tracked so far take the form of substantial sweeps, with a new version of a gene being present in a large percentage of the population. These hard sweeps are often assumed to start from a novel mutation. But it can take a long time for the right mutation to occur, especially if there is a very small target, like the region of DNA that controls a gene. In the worst case, the waiting time would be 300,000 generations, according to a calculation by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago. And indeed, there are not many hard sweeps in the human genome.

But the new evidence that humans have adapted rapidly and extensively suggests that natural selection must have other options for changing a trait besides waiting for the right mutation to show up. In an article in Current Biology in February, Dr. Pritchard suggested that a lot of natural selection may take place through what he called soft sweeps.

Soft sweeps work on traits affected by many genes, like height. Suppose there are a hundred genes that affect height (about 50 are known already, and many more remain to be found). Each gene exists in a version that enhances height and a version that does not. The average person might inherit the height-enhancing version of 50 of these genes, say, and be of average height as a result.

Suppose this population migrates to a region, like the Upper Nile, where it is an advantage to be very tall. Natural selection need only make the height-enhancing versions of these 100 genes just a little more common in the population, and now the average person will be likely to inherit 55 of them, say, instead of 50, and be taller as a result. Since the height-enhancing versions of the genes already exist, natural selection can go to work right away and the population can adapt quickly to its new home."
 Stray__Cat
Joined: 7/12/2006
Msg: 67
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 5:09:54 PM
Paul K I was typing to the guy
who didn't understand how birds evolved.
Everyone else.....go ahead and carry on.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 70
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 6:12:26 PM
How many changes, or mutations would have to have occured to get from the common ancestor that we had with apes, to become homo sapiens?

With ya there.
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 71
view profile
History
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 6:20:08 PM


1995, Lucy another fraud.


Lucy was discovered in 1974 and is not a fraud.
I would guess the Lucy you're referring to was immortalized in this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_QrShZQNmw
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 73
view profile
History
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 6:40:06 PM
If you frequent creationist websites then, yes, it is common knowledge to those who make up whatever they want and claim it as fact.
I can't say I blame you, I believe everything Kirk Cameron says too
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 74
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 6:44:30 PM

I can't say I blame you, I believe everything Kirk Cameron says too

Favorite video:

Hot Romanian Girl Takes Kirk Cameron's Book Video Apart

NSFW Language.

http://videosift.com/video/Hot-Romanian-Girl-Takes-Kirk-Cameron-s-Book-Video-Apart
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 75
view profile
History
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 7:06:53 PM
Aristotle_Amadopolis said:




Hot Romanian Girl Takes Kirk Cameron's Book Video Apart


Wow, I think I am in love.
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 76
view profile
History
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 7:08:40 PM


I don't know what your talking about. Did you ever see the original photo when Lucy was laid out?. There are no hands or feet. You see how the ribs are angled. You notice the pelvic region?. Then look at post photos. I mean, I don't get you people. Sheeple is putting it mildly

I'm so glad you made this observation. I mean, if it weren't for creationists with pre-determined conclusions, how would we ever be able to debunk hard scientific facts with simple subjective observations?
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 78
view profile
History
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 7:33:29 PM

I mean let's face it, it's not the first time evolutionist have committed fraud for christ sakes and I'm sure won't be the last.

You haven't established any fraud, so you are just begging the question.

Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition is made that uses its own premise as proof of the proposition. In other words, it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 79
view profile
History
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 7:44:00 PM

I'm so glad you made this observation. I mean, if it weren't for creationists with pre-determined conclusions, how would we ever be able to debunk hard scientific facts with simple subjective observations?


Religion aside, what is theory but predetermined conclusion? Let's address reality; there would be no scientific reserarch without predetermined conclusion, the basis of funding such research.
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 80
view profile
History
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 8:00:16 PM
^^^^
I have to assume that's not a rhetorical question



A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena.[1] Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments.[2] Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory.[3]
~~~~~~~~
The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:

It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

excerpt from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
I suggest you read the whole thing
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 82
view profile
History
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 8:36:13 PM

You haven't established any fraud, so you are just begging the question.


Well, there isn't any fraud with you people. That's what makes you so dangerous. Facts, evidence and common sense have no place in your world.

You haven't presented any '"facts" or "evidence" and most of your conclusions make no sense.
You're actually just pushing a fringe opinion that lacks both factual and evidential support, which is presumably why you haven't presented any.

For instance...
You have an original photo with no hands, no feet, angled rib bones and a pelvic region. The post photos clearly indicate major league reconstruction. Funny, is it coincidental that everything needed to prove this is a missing link had to be reconstructed or placed in a manner to trick people.

Pure opinion ^^^.


Friend, get off my thread. When you have something of substance your free to comeback.

It isn't 'your' thread, and if contributions of "substance" were prerequisites for participation you would have disappeared long ago.
The links and references to independent and objective factual information I've posted outnumber your contributions by about 100 to... zero. So if that's the test, I guess you'll be leaving.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >