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
 pappy009
Joined: 2/3/2008
Msg: 130
view profile
History
Define the Theory of EvolutionPage 4 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
If the big bang is creation, then evolution must follow creation. Time does not go backwards. So creation and evolution are in reality the same creature. Did we experience the big bang or the bigger bang.......maybe a smaller bang.....but what ever bang we came from this is its evolution.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 131
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/28/2008 5:36:54 PM
RE msg 176 by casuallycurious:
Scorpio, I can see where you are coming from, as I have had similar experiences with some people that stick purely to science. At the same time, we have had much different experiences with religious people.
We've obviously met very different people. That is all I can say about that.

Now to your Math analogy. It seems that, considering that God is the more complex level, as would be calculus, isn't stating that there is a creator, before laying the groundwork, IS putting the cart before the horse? But I would ask what presupposition you are stating that I have made...?
That one can study the advanced material without being expert in the basics. As one poster said, the difference between the expert and the amateur, is that the expert is expert in the basics, and nothing else. All the advanced stuff is just derived from the basics. If you know the basics expertly, the advanced stuff is obvious. If you don't know the basics expertly, the advanced stuff is beyond you.

We have to look at what comes first? The belief in G-d, or the things that you can only accept if you believe in G-d?
Let us label belief in G-d as A, and things that you can only accept if you believe in G-d as B.
You can only accept B if you first accept A as true. So A => B. So there is no point in trying to learn about B, until you know that A is true.
So the first thing you learn is about belief in G-d, and then the rest later.

Sometimes it's a bit easier to teach belief in G-d later, as it requires deep thought, and many people don't believe that young kids can handle deep thought.

Also, many teachers just take it for granted that you would be taught about belief in G-d, before you would attend Sunday School, as there would be little point otherwise. I know that happened to me. I was sent to a religious high school at 10, by my choice. However, one of the teachers said "we all know there is a G-d", and I was a little surprised, because I'd never heard anyone discuss the issue of how you knew there was a G-d before. But then, it was full of kids who went to the primary school that was linked to the high school, and my primary school was a lot more modern, and they never discussed philosophy in it.

By the way, G-d is the simpler concept. G-d is generally a concept that applies to all things, in all situations, so G-d is a lot simpler than something that only applies sometimes, to some situations. However, G-d is more complex in one way. Adults who are used to just accepting what they are taught tend to think only in terms of the situations they are taught about, and are scared of thinking "outside the box". G-d is outside every box, because G-d applies to all things, in all situations. The things we are generally taught to accept as adults, are things that only apply to some times and to some situations, generally the times and situations of the lives our parents live. So it is far more "simple" to not learn about G-d, because understanding G-d requires creative imagination, and not just accepting what you are taught. In that way, G-d is more complex, because you cannot just accept what you have been spoonfed to understand G-d.

As for just 'accepting what you are being told' that is something that I have never been able to do. My whole life has been a string of earnest questions about what is, and why it is, trying to figure out what makes sense to me.
I know only a few people who do that, and we all get problems from others, because people get annoyed at us all the time. It's very annoying to others when you won't just accept what they accepted without thinking.
 ZeroSpazz
Joined: 1/31/2008
Msg: 132
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/28/2008 6:47:38 PM

Speaking as a devil's advocate, I don't see why we can't accept the possibility of both, ya know?


Considering the complexity of DNA I would have to agree with you. At some point all theorys fail, and as all humans have done since we were smart enough to find fire and keep it going, yes I said find fire not make it, we will make up stories in our minds about things we do not understand.
The important thing about these stories is if they are manageable and can support not only the community, but the individual. Its very important for any theory not to be taken to heart so literally that we form groups that go out and kill everyone that doesn't agree with it.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 133
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/28/2008 9:37:44 PM

beautifulady35:[Mutations] always mean a loss of genetic information.

desertrhino:Actually, my education (and doctoral research) was in molecular genetics, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that several methods of INCREASING genetic information exist and it happens every day. I can't expect everyone here to go out and invest 10-14 years of their life educating themselves on the topic, though.
I expect lies from beautifulady, but I am disappointed in you desertrhino. If you are so educated in genetics, you could refute her claim with very little effort. Instead, you spent that moment bragging about your credentials. Small wonder that evolutionists have a reputation for arrogance.

And it just so happened that on the same day I stated the following in another thread:
Everything I know, no matter how complex or involved, can be explained to a typical 10yr old such that s/he can comprehend it. If I can't make him/her understand a concept, it isn't their fault, its my own fault for not having a proper understanding.
So I will attempt to do precisely that, and explain how a mutation can lead to increased genetic information. Before I do, lets set aside the fact that creationists rarely, if ever, define what "information" is, and this is done intentionally to avoid refutation. For the sake of argument, I will assume it means an increase in genetic material. There's a few ways this occurs, I will only explain one: gene duplication.

(keep in mind this is aimed at a 10yr old audience)
People are like computers in a way, in that both have a code that makes them look and work the way they do. The code that makes people the way they are called "genes," these give you eye color, hair color, the shape of your nose, etc. When mom and dad have a baby, some mommy genes and daddy genes are joined together to make the baby's genes. Each group of genes connected together is called a chromosome, and you need to copy lots of these to make a baby - this happens in mommy's belly long before baby is born. But sometimes, when genes are getting copied, a mistake is made and the same gene is copied more than once, so a chromosome has more stuff on it than it is supposed to.

...and there you have a mutation: gene duplication, and an increase in genetic information.

go out and invest 10-14 years of their life educating themselves on the topic
...pfft
 Is too hot
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 134
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/28/2008 10:13:06 PM

The second law of thermodynamics: the entropy (disorder, or decay) of the universe increases over time.

That's not the second law. Go look it up, come back and post it and we may have a conversation. Otherwise, you're just misinformed.


The other stuff I quote is not baloney.

Yes it is. Trust me. None of that stuff holds water but let's start with pablum for you. Second Law of Thermodynamics. Go get it.


Gregor Mendel, known as the "father of genetics," was 6-day creationist Christian. He wanted to study God's creation.

Your point, dear? Are you stating that Mendel's work predicted DNA. Nope.


Oh, you found me out! and I thought I was hiding it so well. "fish to philosopher" evolution starts with an answer and seeks facts using the tool of science that will back it up. Unfortunately for those who worship evolution, the scientific facts back up the Bible's version better.

Actually, you don't hide it well at all. We've seen this tripe many, many times. Your prattle is just a diversion.
The ToE began with an observation that a bird population, free to fly from one island and interbreed, did not. Why not? Because, over time, their beaks had become specialized for life on that specific island. The observation that this mechanism was at the base of speciation has been observed and tested over time with no falsification. As a matter of fact, the biochemistry of DNA analysis withtout a doubt confirms the ToE. No more need to go looking for transition fossils to convince the foolish and unsophisticated.


the scientific facts back up the Bible's version better

Now this is laughable. Have you found physical proof of Sodom or Gommorah yet? Christ's existence? The Ark (either one)? Where all those "assumed into Heaven" went?

Just what evidence do you claim supports the Bible? Are you going to pollute this website with made-up, debunked hypotheses like irreducible complexity? That's a sham. Anyone wishing to see it is a sham can read the admissions by Dr. Behe during the Kitzmiller trial.


Science does not "belong" to evolutionists. Creationists have every right to use this tool. Science couldn't exist without assuming something very different from random chaos.

Science belongs to everyone. You only have to follow the Scientific Method to belong to the club. Here's the thing about the Scientific Method, dear. The mere discovery of one fact that contradicts a Theory is enough to disprove that Theory. Yet, you come here with made-up nonsense that we've all heard before yet the ToE is still standing. Fancy that!

So, what does Creationism explain that the ToE does not? Care to give us a falsifiable test for Creationism? (Hint: if you can't, it's not science) Please, anything. Go ahead. Anything at all.


If you only knew what the Bible is.

Oh, dearie, you don't want to go there. I know more about the Bible and its history than you realize. Just stick to your ignorance of science right now, OK? Go get the Second Law. I'm getting bored with you already.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 135
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/29/2008 2:10:59 AM
Weak sauce, rockondon. Funny, though.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 136
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/29/2008 5:02:30 AM
RE msg 181 by rockondon:

Everything I know, no matter how complex or involved, can be explained to a typical 10yr old such that s/he can comprehend it. If I can't make him/her understand a concept, it isn't their fault, its my own fault for not having a proper understanding.
So I will attempt to do precisely that, and explain how a mutation can lead to increased genetic information. Before I do, lets set aside the fact that creationists rarely, if ever, define what "information" is, and this is done intentionally to avoid refutation. For the sake of argument, I will assume it means an increase in genetic material. There's a few ways this occurs, I will only explain one: gene duplication.
It's really not as easy as it sounds. Case in point:
(keep in mind this is aimed at a 10yr old audience)
People are like computers in a way, in that both have a code that makes them look and work the way they do. The code that makes people the way they are called "genes," these give you eye color, hair color, the shape of your nose, etc. When mom and dad have a baby, some mommy genes and daddy genes are joined together to make the baby's genes. Each group of genes connected together is called a chromosome, and you need to copy lots of these to make a baby - this happens in mommy's belly long before baby is born. But sometimes, when genes are getting copied, a mistake is made and the same gene is copied more than once, so a chromosome has more stuff on it than it is supposed to.
(please keep in mind I'll try to answer like a 10-year-old)
Computers are made of bits aren't they? Aren't bits only 1 or 0? So aren't genes only 1 or 0?
Also, 1 mommy gene and 1 daddy gene make a chromosome, then aren't chromosomes just 2 genes?
Also, how do the genes make a baby? My computer can play lots of games. But it can't make me a webcam. I had to go and buy one.
Also, how come when my computer gets a virus, my dad screams, because the computer stops working. Dad said that we had to "wipe the hard disk". He said that was like binning all the "code". My dad says that every time a program gets an error, the program stops working. Why do people keep working when they get an error, and my computer doesn't?

...and there you have a mutation: gene duplication, and an increase in genetic information.
Also, why is it if I make a mistake in school, my teacher tells me that means I'm stupider, not smarter. Why do genes know more when they make an error, and I know less?

When I was first told that if I couldn't explain it, I was my fault, I thought it would be easy. How wrong I was. I found that every time someone didn't understand, I had to try harder. It was really annoying, because I KNEW what I was explaining, and yet I couldn't get the other people to understand it. I thought they must be thick or something. So I tried going over it in my head, as if I was explaining it to a 10-year-old. Didn't help much. So I went over it with people, to understand at what point our thought proces differed. Then I went over it by myself, to understand why I didn't veer off in the same direction they did. The funny thing was, that the more I tried to understand their point of view, the more I realised they were being completely rational. I was assuming that you HAD to take the path of thinking that I did. So then I started wondering about what if I DIDN'T have to take that path? What if I could take any path? What made ME think that I had to take that path? Was that assumption true? Could I PROVE that assumption was true? 90% of the time, I couldn't. I came to amazing conclusions because I stopped just going with what I assumed to be true, and I made far less assumptions. I realised that there were lots of things that were very strange, that everyone I knew thought couldn't happen, and I concluded that they could happen. Then they did. Again, and again, and again. I knew I was on the right road, when that started happening.

These days, I am less sure of most things, and yet the little I do know, I am far more confident of being right.
 quietcowboy
Joined: 12/25/2007
Msg: 137
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/29/2008 9:35:09 AM
It wouldn't matter if Mary was the Archbishop of Canterbury, I was only pointing out that she is an evolutionist, as opposed to being a Creationist. I said or implied nothing else. You are the one implying that I am bias. And I suggested nothing of anything you stated. T alk about paranoid evolutionists. Anything, what she said, says or believes is up to her.
And I did not lie about anything.
Nor did I say "a few thousand years old" you did. So who is the one lying ?
If you'd like debate intelligently, correct me about the radiogenic helium, if I'm wrong.

Re Post 150
Again here is a reference that explains what is wrong with your assessment of radiogenic helium as it pertains to the young earth hypothesis:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 138
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/29/2008 11:48:52 AM
RE msg 185 by INTOART:
I did not claim to derive my conclusion from your quote. I started by agreeing with your point,
That wasn't MY point. That was from msg 155 by Is too hot. You don't know who you're quoting?

then added my own (slightly more extreme) conclusion.
Putting 2 things on the same line generally implies that it came from the same source, or at least that it is clearly your own point. It wasn't. The way you communicate reflects the way you think. Even dyslexics are very often still good communicators because they are known to be good thinkers. I have no need to consider your points, if even dyslexics on this forum, are clearer to understand than you are. It just tells me that your thinking is composed of words, that add up to nothing. There are many people like that who went to university. They know all the big words, they can string them together, but they can never make anything that makes sense. But it's very impressive to lots of uneducated people. Just not to educated people. They know if you make sense or not.

Whenever science can explain something, that explanation is correct (or is the most correct explanation currently available.)
Clearly, you haven't heard of the Supreme Court, or practically any scientist, because science is never 100%, and so that explanation is PROBABLY correct, or it is the most PROBABLY explanation that you personally know of, and your friends. Not mine, because my friends consider many other possibilities on top.

Only those things which lie outside the scope of science can be proper subjects for religion.
That is your opinion. But as you made clear later on, you don't want anything to do with religion. So as far as you are concerned, religion is nothing to do with you. So your statement can only mean: "Only those things which lie outside the scope of science can be proper subjects for nothing." That is so irrelevant it's laughable.

(And the scope of science keeps expanding, so that it will eventually eliminate any need for religion whatsoever.
There are plenty of people who feel like you. A while back, they established their own country. The U.S.S.R. You would haved loved it.

Of course, some of us already don't have any need for religion.)
You can always leave and go start another U.S.S.R. Who knows? Maybe you can be the new Stalin. I hear the old KGB are looking for a new job.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 140
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/29/2008 1:36:10 PM
scorpiomover
(please keep in mind I'll try to answer like a 10-year-old)
The more questions they have the better. The ones you have shown are great examples of questions I'd love to explain, especially the last one
Also, why is it if I make a mistake in school, my teacher tells me that means I'm stupider, not smarter.
That's an easy one - its because your teacher is a ****ing ***hole.
beautifullady35
nature-as-a-closed-system

[macroevolution] contradicts laws of science such as the second law of thermodynamics

The sun and the stars are wonderful examples of the second law of thermodynamics
All 3 are wrong. Nature is not a closed system, energy from the sun does have the power to drive things. The only processes evolution needs is selection, heritable variation, and reproduction - all things that we see happening all the time. Even in a closed system, entropy can decrease in some areas by increasing in others.
intoart
not to mention the ridiculous multiple nested quote format.
I think someone needs to take a ride on the pyramid of joy.












Pyramid
of Joy
 Is too hot
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 141
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/29/2008 5:25:33 PM
Hey, what happened to beautifullady? I only sent her off to look up the correct version of the Second Law. Maybe she did and found out she was wrong? That's no excuse for not facing the music, is it?

Why do fundies lie so much?
 Is too hot
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 143
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/30/2008 12:08:14 AM

Evolution violates the 2nd Law because it requires an increase in ordered complexity over time when left alone in order to be true. The 2nd Law is that things become more disordered (entropy), not more ordered, over time when left alone.

Oh, good, you're back! I told you to go find an accurate statement of the Second Law but I see now that you're back with the same idiotic version. That's not it, babe. Really. you should know better by now. That's not what the Second Law states. As I suspect you know better, this qualifies as a lie. So sad to be you.

How you can possibly state this lie when you yourself are alive and, according to you, violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics is beyond me. You really are either deliberatly ignorant or lying. You must know that as you're sitting in front of a computer typing out your idiocy over cables made by humans that, per you, shouldn't even exist.


Creationism doesn't violate the 1st law because it doesn't assume a closed system, as I believe I've explained.

Do you really think we're as ignorant as you are? The First Law merely states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. That statement does not depend on a closed system. Only the Second Law depends on a closed system. This is merely more evidence that you have finally looked up the Second Law, realized your error and are trying to cover it up.

For shame! I thought Christ told you guys to always tell the truth. I guess I was wrong.

It takes a special kind of willful ignorance to post this kind of tripe. I pointed you at the truth and you found it but now you're trying to regress into a nonsensical picture of the universe where you can be right. That just doesn't work, babe. How anyone could start arguing the Laws of Thermo by stating that an open system receivng terraawatts of energy each and every day preclude basic chemical reactions is beyond me.

Listen, if you need help with the Laws of Thermodynamics, I'm here to help you with them. What you're posting here is absolute nonsense. You need to understand science. I'ts based on observation, logic and math.



For an interesting, discussion of irreducible complexity, I recommend the book “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution” by Michael J. Behe.

I recommend http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html

That's the official verions of Kitzmiller v. Dover where Behe was forced, under oath, to admit that he wasn't current with science.

How's that "beautifulady"? Have I refuted you well enough? You seemed to have completely ignored my challenge previously as to what part of Creationism is falsifiable. You can't get away with that. Sorry.
 Is too hot
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 149
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/30/2008 7:49:41 AM
I get a little heated when people lie...especially about science. Stop doing that and I'll stop debunking you. It doesn't matter a whit whether or not you reply to me. I'll reply to you. 'K?
 Is too hot
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 150
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/30/2008 7:52:42 AM

I was correct about the second law. I decided not to answer your other post because I don't want to be called dear or dearie, unless you mean it!

If you were correct, you'd have posted the true version of the Second Law. You didn't. The real version contains phrasing that blows you claim out of the water, dearie.


What on earth are you talking about?

You mean about fundies lying? See above. Recognizing a mistake, refusing to admit it and continuing with the mistake is a lie. Even if it's for jesus.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 151
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/30/2008 11:55:13 AM
RE msg 188 by INTOART:
Does this forum have an ignore list? If so, scorpiomover needs to be put on mine.
There already is one. It's called your fingers. All you have to do is stop them from replying to my posts.

Rarely have I read such pointless, incoherent rambling (not to mention the ridiculous multiple nested quote format.)
I hit post, was going to edit it, for proof-reading, but then I I couldn't find the post. I just assumed that my post didn't make it for some reason.

RE msg 189 by casuallycurious:
He has a point, scorp...

Your comments get more and more antagonistic and circular. I have noted this in other discussions in which you have been involved these past few days.

Maybe it is just a matter of a bit more thought before posting - even if his points aggravate you, or make you feel like he is ignorant, try to display your points from thought, not emotion. Emotion makes people draw very extreme conclusions. Comparing someone who doesn't believe in your God to a vicious dictator is pretty out there... not to mention low.

You might want to consider 'not sinking to his level' if you want to get into the whole 'you said this, you said that' sort of argument.

Hope that this gets worked out, as I don't think you are really ignorant, you just have a habit of framing your points in very roundabout, confusing ways, with quite a few disconnects in them.
I admit that I do sometimes let things get to me. I try not to.

I also agree that my thoughts are very roundabout, and seem very confusing. I write and re-write pages a few times before they make it to posting, without trying. It's just my head comes up with lots of thoughts in a day.

RE msg 190 by rockondon:
The more questions they have the better. The ones you have shown are great examples of questions I'd love to explain, especially the last one
Please explain away.


Also, why is it if I make a mistake in school, my teacher tells me that means I'm stupider, not smarter.
That's an easy one - its because your teacher is a ****ing ***hole.
I doubt so. He taught me to get As for every qualification he prepared me for, and that got me 5 acceptances, from the top universities in the UK, without any interviews, and a request from Cambridge if I would re-take Physics. That's a lot, even for me.

P.S. I like your pyramid of joy. Now, if you could only put some happy faces on it....
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 152
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/30/2008 11:56:02 AM

is too hot: You mean about fundies lying? See above. Recognizing a mistake, refusing to admit it and continuing with the mistake is a lie

beautifullady: I guess you're right; mutations don't always result in a loss of genetic information.
Just wanted to point out that beautifulady did have the character to admit error, props to her.

beautifullady35
Natural selection (a.k.a. microevolution) is a scientific fact. It involves speciation,
You're right about it being a fact, but not so right about the definitions. Natural selection is about passing on heritable traits - favorable traits tend to get passed on more frequently as unfavorable traits (since those with unfavorable traits tend to not survive so well to sire offspring). Microevolution is variation within a species, macroevolution is variation between species, speciation is the emergence of a new species (and is definately considered macroevolution).
In fact, there are no transitory form fossils between kinds of animals, and this has evolutionists very worried
Transitional fossils have traits from their ancestors and future relatives, and so many have been found that it is difficult to tell when one species became another. When creationists see the many thousands of transitional fossils, one thing that helps them close their eyes to the evidence is to use the term "kind" over and over in such a way that they think the evidence doesn't count. Not sure about their reasoning there but its unfortunate they don't have an ounce of respect for their Creator to try to understand His creation, or to at least stop telling lies about those who do.
It contradicts laws of science such as the second law of thermodynamics
The 2nd law discusses entropy increasing in an isolated system. This has nothing to do with us because the world is not an isolated system - we get plenty of energy from the universe, most notably the sun. That's why I made the comment about the sun earlier - if you think evolution violates the 2nd law then you must not realize that there is a sun out there that is providing the world with energy to drive things. The processes that evolution uses are seen all the time and are not in doubt - there is no violation of any law.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 153
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/30/2008 12:27:32 PM
Scorpiomover
Please explain away.
Okey doke. I'll keep the 10yr old child context. I don't really see the point (although I often feel that way reading some of your posts) and I had thought your questions were hypothetical, but here we go...
Also, 1 mommy gene and 1 daddy gene make a chromosome, then aren't chromosomes just 2 genes?
Each chromosome has many genes.
Also, how do the genes make a baby?
Inside mommy's body its like a little factory, and the genes tell it what to build.
Also, how come when my computer gets a virus, my dad screams, because the computer stops working. Dad said that we had to "wipe the hard disk". He said that was like binning all the "code". My dad says that every time a program gets an error, the program stops working. Why do people keep working when they get an error, and my computer doesn't?
Sometimes a computer gets an error and keeps working, just not as well. Thats kind of like people, when we get a virus we keep working, but not as well because we are sick. Computers can't fix their own problems though, but our bodies can fix its problems most of the time.
Also, why is it if I make a mistake in school, my teacher tells me that means I'm stupider, not smarter. Why do genes know more when they make an error, and I know less?
We all make mistakes, but not everyone learns from them. After I make a mistake, I'm smarter because I've learned what not to do. We often learn more from mistakes than doing it right the first time. Explain that to your teacher and see what he says.
Genes don't 'know' anything, they just do. If they are assembled one way, they do one thing, assembled another way, they do another thing.

Don't bother asking me another round of questions - in life I would answer all I could, but on the forums it makes for a boring post. The point I was trying to make was that complex concepts can be explained to those who are willing and able to learn. If you feel I haven't made that point, feel free to point out why. I love to learn, heh heh.

I doubt so. He taught me to get As for every qualification he prepared me for, and that got me 5 acceptances, from the top universities in the UK, without any interviews, and a request from Cambridge if I would re-take Physics. That's a lot, even for me.
The more you brag about how smart you think you are, the less intelligent you appear. Your responses are often wordy, confusing, contain irrelevant examples, evade the points that they seem to be addressing, circular, and often end with bragging about your percieved intelligence.

If you really are smart, you can demonstrate it with concise, logical, informative posts. Then you won't have to brag.

 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 154
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/30/2008 2:34:37 PM
beautifullady35
Now I have a new question for evolutionists to answer: how was NEW genetic information added to DNA by random chance? How did unintelligent matter add more and new "code" to life?
Great question! I'm sorry I missed it earlier.
The rungs of the DNA 'ladder' are made of only 4 different bases - these are often abbreviated as the letters A,C,G, and T. The arrangement of these 4 letters determines our genes. Mistakes are often made in this sequence (this is where 'chance' comes in) and these changes in sequence changes our genes. So while creationists would have you believe that 'new information' requires the magical appearance of new structures or materials, the reality is it merely requires only a change in sequence. Usually these changes are neutral, but some help us, some hurt us, some help us or hurt us depending on environment or circumstances. For example, sickle cell anemia deforms blood cells which deprives the body of oxygen - where I live that is a harmful mutation and as such evolution has selected it out to become very uncommon, in sub saharan africa it is very common mutation because the sickle-shaped cells are highly resistant to malaria which is a more deadly condition. Since that mutation increases life expectancy there, it is passed on more frequently there.

Here's an example:
10% of europeans carry a mutation (known as CCR5-Delta 32) that prevents the HIV virus from entering the cells of the immune system. It is believed that this mutation became common in the 14th century and protected europeans from the bubonic plague. This gene does absolutely nothing for us right now except one single function - if you inherit this gene from both parents you will be especially resistant, if not immune, to AIDS.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 155
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/30/2008 3:52:14 PM
RE msg 204 by rockondon:
Okey doke. I'll keep the 10yr old child context. I don't really see the point (although I often feel that way reading some of your posts) and I had thought your questions were hypothetical, but here we go...
When I keep it to an adult POV, you don't answer the questions.


Also, 1 mommy gene and 1 daddy gene make a chromosome, then aren't chromosomes just 2 genes?
Each chromosome has many genes.
So mommy's genes and daddy's genes DON'T make chromosomes?


Also, how do the genes make a baby?
Inside mommy's body its like a little factory, and the genes tell it what to build.
But you said we're like computers. My computer doesn't have a factory in it.


Also, how come when my computer gets a virus, my dad screams, because the computer stops working. Dad said that we had to "wipe the hard disk". He said that was like binning all the "code". My dad says that every time a program gets an error, the program stops working. Why do people keep working when they get an error, and my computer doesn't?
Sometimes a computer gets an error and keeps working, just not as well. Thats kind of like people, when we get a virus we keep working, but not as well because we are sick.
Computers can't fix their own problems though, but our bodies can fix its problems most of the time.
But you said:
People are like computers in a way, in that both have a code that makes them look and work the way they do. The code that makes people the way they are called "genes," these give you eye color, hair color, the shape of your nose, etc. When mom and dad have a baby, some mommy genes and daddy genes are joined together to make the baby's genes. Each group of genes connected together is called a chromosome, and you need to copy lots of these to make a baby - this happens in mommy's belly long before baby is born. But sometimes, when genes are getting copied, a mistake is made and the same gene is copied more than once, so a chromosome has more stuff on it than it is supposed to.

...and there you have a mutation: gene duplication, and an increase in genetic information.
So if errors make us work worse than we did, then doesn't that mean that these mutations make us work worse?

We all make mistakes, but not everyone learns from them. After I make a mistake, I'm smarter because I've learned what not to do. We often learn more from mistakes than doing it right the first time. Explain that to your teacher and see what he says.
But I can't learn what NOT to do, unless I know it's a mistake, and I know what to do instead, can I?

Genes don't 'know' anything, they just do. If they are assembled one way, they do one thing, assembled another way, they do another thing.
If genes don't 'know' anything, then how can they know they're doing anything wrong? How can they know what to do instead?

Don't bother asking me another round of questions - in life I would answer all I could, but on the forums it makes for a boring post. The point I was trying to make was that complex concepts can be explained to those who are willing and able to learn. If you feel I haven't made that point, feel free to point out why. I love to learn, heh heh.
I'm not interested in an answer. The point I am making is that your answers don't actually answer the questions at all, because they don't address the actual issue that I started with. You just get off the point. But given that you say later that you get confused with my posts, that's not surprising.
I doubt so. He taught me to get As for every qualification he prepared me for, and that got me 5 acceptances, from the top universities in the UK, without any interviews, and a request from Cambridge if I would re-take Physics. That's a lot, even for me.

The more you brag about how smart you think you are, the less intelligent you appear. Your responses are often wordy, confusing, contain irrelevant examples, evade the points that they seem to be addressing, circular, and often end with bragging about your percieved intelligence.

If you really are smart, you can demonstrate it with concise, logical, informative posts. Then you won't have to brag.
I'll simplify my answer for you: You find my posts confusing. That's why you find them wordy. That's why you cannot see the relevance of my examples. You think they're evasive, because you don't understand them. You get lost in them, and that is why you think they're circular.

I agree that many people have the same problem you do. I am learning how to communicate better with people. But I've got enough responses from people on POF who really do think my posts are informative and intelligent, to know that they have plenty of value. I also know from real life, that even the people who find them very, very confusing, and have all the problems that you find with what I say, that when I go very, very slowly, and break it down into really simple points, and they take the time to listen carefully, they think I've got incredibly good points.

If I have to talk like a child for you to understand me, so be it. I have to do it a lot in real life too. But it doesn't impress me that you know what you're talking about, for me to do that.

You're also right that I was bragging about my exams. I SHOULD have said that all the 20+ pupils in my teacher's class, we all got As for the O-Levels (15-16) my teacher prepared us for. For our A-Levels (17-18), my teacher told us that if we didn't want to hand in our homeworks, he wouldn't make us. ALL the pupils who handed in all their homeworks got As for all their A-Levels that he prepared us for, and the Special Papers. 2 kids didn't do all their homeworks, and skipped a lot of homeworks. They got As in half the A-Levels he prepared us for.

I agree that I am not a great communicator. But I know that when I'm talking rubbish, everyone tells me so. Right now, it's only the people who disagree with my views. But I'm still getting people who tell me that I do make intelligent posts. So that just shows I'm making good points for my POV.

If you don't like it, you have the choice to not respond to my posts.
 Is too hot
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 156
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/30/2008 6:06:23 PM

Just wanted to point out that beautifulady did have the character to admit error, props to her.

She somehow doesn't want to admit her error on the Second Law of Thermo, though. She's blathering about how evolution or even abiogenesis break that law but she's making the usual fundy mistatement that the entire universe homogenuously increases in entropy. I challenged her to look up and post the Second Law but she didn't. Instead, she came back and applied the correct 2nd law pretext of a "closed system" to the First Law so I know she looked it up.

So, I don't share your respect for her. Funny how she doesn't like the same disrespect aimed at her that she uses on others. She taunted me about my knowledge or the Bible but didn't like the reply. Have you noticed how fundies alway assume that, if you don't susbscribe to their credo, it must be because you don't know anything about it? I know more about Christianity than she does and I gleefully reject it. Hearing Christians complain about nonsensical religious cults makes me wince.


The 2nd law discusses entropy increasing in an isolated system. This has nothing to do with us because the world is not an isolated system - we get plenty of energy from the universe, most notably the sun. That's why I made the comment about the sun earlier - if you think evolution violates the 2nd law then you must not realize that there is a sun out there that is providing the world with energy to drive things. The processes that evolution uses are seen all the time and are not in doubt - there is no violation of any law.

Well put. I hope she can comprehend this. Maybe the Socratic approach isn't for her.
 Is too hot
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 157
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/30/2008 6:24:53 PM

Now I have a new question for evolutionists to answer: how was NEW genetic information added to DNA by random chance? How did unintelligent matter add more and new "code" to life? .


Many ways. Here's one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_recombination

I get the feeling you're confusing "random" with "chaotic". They're not the same. Randomness is equal probability whereas chaos allows anything to happen in a haphazard manner. They're not the same.
 pappy009
Joined: 2/3/2008
Msg: 159
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/31/2008 4:34:20 PM
Define the Theory of Evolution

To Grow!!
 ZeroSpazz
Joined: 1/31/2008
Msg: 160
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/1/2008 6:21:28 PM
Well just like those that don't want to destroy the environment by telling us we can't drill for oil, then go fill up there SUV's with gas and drive 90 mph, there are those that don't believe in evolution and still enjoy the fruits of our labors with breeding. They watch horse racing and know in the back of thier minds we stud horses. They eat animal that have been bred to produce more meat, more milk, more eggs. They eat fruits and vegatable that have been genetically altered or favored to produce more, be more resistant to disease and insects. They generally have dogs or cats or some kind of animal that is a mix of breeds, or has been bred over the centurys in some way to be a new breed, ignoring the fact that has been done and saying, "Yes this is a pure bred!" when in 99 percent of domesticated animals, its not. I guess time erases evolution.
Me? I am just glad we can feed everyone that we can and be so entertained by these animals. Just don't try and tell a creationist that breeding and evolution are the same thing...you will just get this big blank stare while they hold the leash to that prize winning dog...
 ZeroSpazz
Joined: 1/31/2008
Msg: 162
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/1/2008 6:54:51 PM
And this is an argument for what Beautifulllady?

"And Cain knew his wife, and she concieved and bore Enoch." Genesis 17

Cain's wife obviously came from the people tree.

There seems to be an ambiguousness to your post...
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 164
view profile
History
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 8/1/2008 7:45:56 PM

Cain's wife obviously came from the people tree.

No, I think she came from the tree 'kind'
Or perhaps the sister kind.


Horses don't turn into cows. Cats don't turn into dogs.
And its a good thing too....if they did that would be evidence against evolution.


for the purpose of avoiding your Creator and being accountable to Him.
Q: How does accepting evolution avoid your Creator?
A: uhh...duhh...um...what's wrong with stating blatantly foolish lies in the name of God?

Did you know that most christians believe in evolution? Are Christians avoiding God so they aren't accountable?

We are accountable in this life, not the next one. I do good deeds without any expectation of reward in the afterlife. If the only reason people do good things is because they expect reward or fear punishment, they aren't very good people.

As an atheist, I would love to meet God in the afterlife. I would tell him that I lived the best I could, loved the best I could, and had the courage and willingness to understand His creation as best I could with an objective, open mind. If that doesn't get me in heaven, then I don't wanna be there.

If I were a creationist and I met God, I'd have to tell Him that I lied in His name constantly in order to maintain my false beliefs. I would have to admit that I deceived others with idiotic claims like 'cats turning into dogs'. I would admit that not only did I lack the courage to try to understand His creation, I also told lies and deceit about those who did try to understand it. Finally, I would have to admit that while I claimed to follow His wise and honest Son, I made no attempt to imitate him.

Think about your own accountability.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >