13-01-2002 12:07									#121
	Re: Where do we find these guys? Ramo, Texas (teeny-town) Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Ramo This has got to be one of the most hilarious things I've read on the board! I wonder how this'll go over with my Physics prof: "the Schrodinger Wave Equation is obviously bullocks 'cuz it's theoretical."

What nonsense.

I was talking about ranskaldans argumentation as 'theory'. It was a discussion on the use of the word "most" . But to you this is obviously on par with Newton's Mechanics. Go figure.

Newton's mechanics have been proven right. And your points Joe seems to be on natural selection. I have never heard leading evolutionists say that evolution has been proven. Quite contrary. Yet many ppl tend to think so.

	13-01-2002 14:22									#122
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: I was talking about ranskaldans argumentation as 'theory'.

It also has been experimentally validated.

quote: It was a discussion on the use of the word "most"

Your point would be...?

quote: But to you this is obviously on par with Newton's Mechanics. Go figure.

Newton came up with Schrodinger's Wave Equation? Learn something new everyday!

quote: Newton's mechanics have been proven right.

Einstein would probably disagree.

Regardless, "proven" is a loaded word, particularly in science. Ignoring the logical problems in absolute proofs for the moment, science is a work in progress.

quote: I have never heard leading evolutionists say that evolution has been proven.

Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You want evidence for evolution?

Get some penicilin and apply it to a population of bacteria. Repeat the application, and you fairly soon have a penicilin-immune population of bacteria.

	13-01-2002 18:45									#123
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Get some penicilin and apply it to a population of bacteria. Repeat the application, and you fairly soon have a penicilin-immune population of bacteria.

Just helping a fellow traveller improve his arguements but you won't find a creationist that doubts that microevolution exists. You need to tell tham about evidence for macroevolution.

	13-01-2002 19:24									#124
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: It has been observed to occur many times. For example, Biston betularia, an English moth, has two different races. One is dark colored and the other is light. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that prior to 1848 fewer then 2% of its population were dark colored moths. In 1898 95% of the moths in Manchester and other industrial areas were dark colored. During this time England was going through the industrial revolution, and the amount of black soot being sent into the air was increasing. The light colored moths stood out against the black soot and were caught more often by predators. This is proof of evolution.

quote: Get some penicilin and apply it to a population of bacteria. Repeat the application, and you fairly soon have a penicilin-immune population of bacteria.

That would not proove evolution - It would provide evidence for natural selection however. In case one, no mutations are required for the described process. Ditto for case two.

There is a BIG and IMPORTANT difference that many fail to realise.

	13-01-2002 19:47									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin That would not proove evolution - It would provide evidence for natural selection however. In case one, no mutations are required for the described process. Ditto for case two.

Actually, that does.

Since evolution is scientifically defined as "changes in frequency of alleles."

	13-01-2002 19:52									#126
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It does not prove evolution. It gives evdience for a single facet.

If I "proved" the GUT it does not prove the TOE.

	13-01-2002 19:52									#127
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

well, the only argument that Lars-E came up with against my explanation is that it's theoretical.

(Ok, and he also doubted the possibility of beneficial mutations. I mean.... it's like a lottery. Are you saying there can never be million-dollar winners??)

Mmmm, so what if it's theoretical? If I let go of a ball it will bounce onto the floor. That sounds theoretical to me. But it works.

The reason why some theoretical explanations don't work is because other outside factors cancel them out. Unfortunately, no one has given me any outside factors that could cancel out the effects of what I outlined.

Thus evolution is the more reasonable theory.

Edit:
oh yes, Sagadacious. That is not one facet of evolution. That's basically what evolution is.
(Well, unless you are denying the existence of mutations whatsoever.)

	13-01-2002 19:58									#128
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by ranskaldan Edit: oh yes, Sagadacious. That is not one facet of evolution. That's basically what evolution is. (Well, unless you are denying the existence of mutations whatsoever.)

I believe mutations occur and that they are a part of the evolutionary process, but the experiments outlined have no need for any kind of mutations.

	13-01-2002 20:03									#129
	Inflate your Upload Space

Let me clarrify why I make this point -

Without mutations there is a limit on the forms of life that can evolve. That is they are restricted tp what is already in the gene pool. It would place a limiting factor on evolution.

	13-01-2002 20:09									#130
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Newton came up with Schrodinger's Wave Equation? Learn something new everyday!

I'm sure you do cos this is news to me.

quote: Einstein would probably disagree.

Maybe I should have put a ? after 'right'.

quote: Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You want evidence for evolution? Get some penicilin and apply it to a population of bacteria. Repeat the application, and you fairly soon have a penicilin-immune population of bacteria.

Evolution is not only about selection.

quote: Mmmm, so what if it's theoretical? If I let go of a ball it will bounce onto the floor. That sounds theoretical to me. But it works

My point was that theory is nice and good as long as it works. At least you got that part right, Ramo didnt.

Anyways 'theory' aside. An amoeba evolved to a cat, a person, and a tree. I'm sure you had statistics and probabilities at the uni, ranskaldan. Would you please give me the probabilities for this to happen?

	13-01-2002 22:58									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Lars-E Anyways 'theory' aside. An amoeba evolved to a cat, a person, and a tree. I'm sure you had statistics and probabilities at the uni, ranskaldan. Would you please give me the probabilities for this to happen?

Over a couple billion years? Oh, I'd ballpark it around 100%.

As for the above examples of natural selection (antibiotic-resistant bacteria; the moths in London)--of course they required a mutation! They may not have required a brand-new mutation, but without an "untested" mutation in previous generations (antibiotic resistance, or a darker color), those populations would have died. Mutations were required for those processes, SD.

We need not limit ourselves to lower lifeforms, either. Plenty of examples in humans as well. Various mutations involving blood (including sickle cell) are common in the malaria belt (Mediterranean, Middle East, Northern Africa, Indian Subcontinent, etc.), as they provide a measure of protection against malaria.

	13-01-2002 23:07									#132
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer As for the above examples of natural selection (antibiotic-resistant bacteria; the moths in London)--of course they required a mutation! They may not have required a brand-new mutation, but without an "untested" mutation in previous generations (antibiotic resistance, or a darker color), those populations would have died. Mutations were required for those processes, SD.

I agree that mutations occur and are part of the process BUT the data from the suggested experiments show no evidence of a mutation!

Case 1. The moths. "Kettlewell found that prior to 1848 fewer then 2% of its population were dark colored moths. In 1898 95% of the moths in Manchester and other industrial areas were dark colored".

The condition that was selected for already existed at the beginning of the "test".

Case 2: The bacteria. If the condition selected for was not present at the beginning of the test, there would have been complete sterilisation. As there was not, the ability to withstand pennicillin must have already existed.


I am asking for people to provide scientifically accepted evidence of beneficial mutations actually occuring. There has to be some evidence for it somewhere. Else people are believing a theory without tangible evidence for it!

	13-01-2002 23:15									#133
	Put an end to popups!

Maybe you misread my post... I stated quite clearly that "untested" mutations in PREVIOUS GENERATIONS were absolutely REQUIRED for the phenomena described. Without a previous mutation granting antibiotic resistance, the bacteria would have died. Clear?

Moreover, if you want proof of mutations actually occuring, become a geneticist, or a physician. People are born with de novo mutations all the time, mutations that are not found in their parents, mutations that will be passed down to future generations.

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin I agree that mutations occur and are part of the process BUT the data from the suggested experiments show no evidence of a mutation! Case 1. The moths. "Kettlewell found that prior to 1848 fewer then 2% of its population were dark colored moths. In 1898 95% of the moths in Manchester and other industrial areas were dark colored". The condition that was selected for already existed at the beginning of the "test". Case 2: The bacteria. If the condition selected for was not present at the beginning of the test, there would have been complete sterilisation. As there was not, the ability to withstand pennicillin must have already existed. I am asking for people to provide scientifically accepted evidence of beneficial mutations actually occuring. There has to be some evidence for it somewhere. Else people are believing a theory without tangible evidence for it!

	13-01-2002 23:30									#134
	Got spare money?

mmm......
i think it's possible for a dark-colored moth to undergo a mutation so that it gives birth to light-colored moth.......

anyone has evidence on this??

	13-01-2002 23:47									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by ranskaldan mmm...... i think it's possible for a dark-colored moth to undergo a mutation so that it gives birth to light-colored moth....... anyone has evidence on this??

I think its possible for two people with brown hair to have blonde haired off-spring. That doesn't make it a mutation.

	13-01-2002 23:50									#136
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

no.... that's not what i'm talking about.

that's the re emergence of recessive genes. no actual genetic change occurs.


i am talking about complete mutation of genes.

	13-01-2002 23:50									#137
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer Maybe you misread my post.

I did. You did say prior generations.

I have given it more thought and come to the conclusion that (without resorting to Creationist nonsense) I have been talking b*****ks for most of this page.

I should follow my own advice to other people and stick to my own scientific field.

	14-01-2002 00:37									#138
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin I did. You did say prior generations. I have given it more thought and come to the conclusion that (without resorting to Creationist nonsense) I have been talking b*****ks for most of this page. I should follow my own advice to other people and stick to my own scientific field.

No problem, man. It happens to everyone once in a while. Rereading what I wrote, I hope I didn't come off as rude; that wasn't my intention. Glad to know ya.

	14-01-2002 03:54									#139
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Just helping a fellow traveller improve his arguements but you won't find a creationist that doubts that microevolution exists. You need to tell tham about evidence for macroevolution.

Well, then they should say that. They quite clearly criticise evolution, not just macroevolution. Of course, I get the impression they don't really understand the theory of biological evolution. Anyway, here's some observed instances of macroevolution:

Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved." The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart."

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

Fruit Flies: Drosophila paulistorum Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

	14-01-2002 04:56									#140
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

thank you!

	14-01-2002 05:48									#141
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Here I finally am.

this is all in reply to MarkL,
I'm sorry for the delay Mark.

quote: God good to all, or just a few? PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

just quote Jer 13:10 and you know the answer.

quote: 10 This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.

God is good to all, but will punish those who won't listen to his words. (etc)
It's like your father is good for you (I hope he is) but he'll punish you when you'll keep on disobeying him.

quote: GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Gen 1 could be chronological, while Gen 2 is not.
Gen 1 tells us (something) (in fact very little) about the creation.
Gen 2 tells us that all the beasts (which were created by God) were brought in front of Adam.

quote: Righteous live? Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree." Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Ps 92 tells us about the future while Isa 57 explains the present

quote: Jesus' last words Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

If you put me in fron of 100 people, and kill me, and I can speak up to 10 last lines, I'm sure every of the people that was in there will know some of my 'last lines' but about nobody will remember all of the correctly anymore.

quote: Years of famine II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee? I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

seems like someone got the wrong number.
I have no explanation.

quote: II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah. I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel.

Seems like the writer of Samuel II thought God provoked David, while the writer of Chronicles saw satan behind the story. Two different history writings by two different authors.

quote: Tempts? "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1) "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

There are two different forms of temptations.
God can tempt if you will be truthfull to Him,
and you can be tempted to sin against God.

Abraham was tempted if he would listen to the orders of God.
Jesus says that God doesn't not tempt people to sin.

More explained:
Abraham would sin if he would NOT obey the 'temptation'
The temptation Jesus talks about is a temptation in which you will sin if you would obey to the temptation.

quote: Judas died how? "And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5) "And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

seems like Judas died, but nobody gives a very accurate explanation of how he died. I'm sure there are some creative people among us that can come with a scenario in which both things happen to the same person.

quote: Ascend to heaven "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11) "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13)

as long as Jesus didn't return to earth, nobody has 'finally' been ascended into heaven. On this day God will judge all of us. Don't ask me where Elijah is right now.

quote: etc etc etc etc

can't find any contradictions

so far my reply to MarkL

about the 'grand-father of Jesus' (in reply to Zhu Yuanzhang)
I'll just quote http://www2.bibelcenter.de/bible/e-...uch/e-wds01.htm

quote: Who is the father of Joseph? Wolfgang Schneider Matthew 1:16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Luke 3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, The contradiction in the references about the different fathers of Jospeh is caused by the general assumption that the Joseph mentioned in these two gospels is one and the same person, i.e. the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus. For a solution to this apparent contradiction one must recognize that the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke are different in various points. The obviously serve different purposes and show that Jesus Christ is the son of David and the son of Abraham (Matthew) as well as the son of man (Luke). In Matthew therefore the genealogy leads from Abraham down to Jesus, in Luke however it goes back from Jesus beyond Abraham all the way back to the first man, Adam. In Matthew we have the lineage of Jesus' ancestors through his mother Mary, in Luke however we have the genealogy via his supposed father Joseph. Both genealogies go back to king David, but through different sons of David. In Matthew, the rightful claim of Jesus to the throne of David is emphasized because he was by the descent of his mother Mary of the royal lineage of David (through Solomon); in Luke it is shown that even Joseph, Jesus' "supposed father" was of the house of David (through David's son Nathan). That Matthew gives the genealogy of the lineage through Mary (and not that of her husband Joseph) becomes clear from the text itself which traces the line from Abraham to Jesus in 3 x 14 generations (Matthew 1:17). If one puts the generations mentioned in their proper order, there are 14 generations from Abraham to David; then from Solomon to Jechonias again 14 generations, but from Salathiel to Christ there would then only 13 (!) generations if the Joseph mentioned was the husband of Mary, but 14 generations if the Joseph mentioned was the father of Mary. The word for "husband" in Matthew 1:16 in the Greek text (aner) and in the Aramaic text (gavra) first and foremost only designates an adult male person, and it can then according to the context be further defined (cp. Luke 24:19 -- prophet; Acts 3:14 -- murderer; Romans 7:2 -- husband, etc.) In Matthew 1:19, the Aramaic text uses a different word for "husband" (bala) which is the proper word for "husband". From the statement in Matthew 1:17 about the 14 generations in each of the 3 divisions of the genealogy, it is clear that the "Joseph" in Matthew 1:16 ("the husband of Mary") could not have been her husband but must have been her father, and it would have been more accurate to translate the words used in Greek and Aramaic as "father". This way the records in Matthew are in harmony with each other, and the apparent contradiction between Matthew and Luke regarding the different fathers of Joseph is solved. Matthew speaks of Joseph, the father of Mary whose father was Jacob; Luke mentions Joseph, the husband of Mary whose father's name was Heli. Some other explanations given do perhaps explain the different "fathers" of Joseph, but still don't solve the problem with the 14 generations mentioned, and therefore cannot be correct. They also rest on the assumption that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke gives the lineage of Mary. In Luke however, Mary isn't even mentioned in his genealogy, and on the other hand Joseph, Mary's husband, is not mentioned in the genealogy as the above study has shown. In reality, it is just opposite, and in Matthew we have the lineage through Mary, whereas Luke gives the lineage of Jesus's supposed father Joseph.

	14-01-2002 06:05									#142
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

seems like nobody replied to this line by me (which is a reply to the original topic)

the arc has been found by numerous people on the Ararat.
Besides that do satelite pictures show something strange that could be the arc, buried in ice.

KrazyHorse:

quote: Are we saved through faith or works? quote: Ephesians 2: 8, 9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast quote: James 2: 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only

you'll be justified on your works. And believe me, you'll be guilty.
But then you'll be saved through faith. (ie. you're guilty, and you'll be punished for your 'works' But hey, Jesus already took your punishments, thus you're saved)

quote: KrazyHorse: This is serious, because it is not only a disagreement on temporal, but also on spiritual matters.

you want to tell me about it ?

We move on with ranskaldan (new civ3 player ? Welcome to the debate !)

quote: Let's say 100000 mutations occur. Just 1 of them is beneficial.... that fits the word 'most' that you used. Then the individual(s) with that 1 beneficial mutation will be able to survive longer and better thru simple probability.... and thus will leave more offspring. Thus, although that initial 1 gene is only found in 0.001% of the population, the proportion will increase... and increase... and increase... until the entire population more or less has this gene. EDIT: oh yes.... in case you're wondering. the other 99999 mutations which are harmful will fade away because the individuals who have them can't survive as well, thus they will leave less offspring, etc etc. multiply this by three billion years, which, btw, is a very very long time. There's enough time for many of the genes to change many many times. Genes are what differentiate species.

Let's make it easy, let's say an eye needs 11 gens to work.
In that case an eye can only 'evolve' in 100000 to the 11th degree cases. This must have happened all at once, since 'natural selection' will for sure have eliminated all those weak creatures with 'half working' eyes.

Can you even imagine how any organism could ever have evolved into a mamal, with two different sexes ? We're not talking about 11 gens anymore. Will it be 100 ? Let's be nice to you, and act like only 100 gens are involved with the organs that are needed for reproduction. Then 1 out of 100000 to the 100th degree will result into a working mamal.

I'm going to tell you that you need a hell lot more time than only 3 billion years ! For sure if you take into account that the human body consists out of 30000 gens.

In our case, even the most simplistic evolutionair model (one lap, from one-cell organism into human) would require a 30000 gen-change.

that's 1 change out of 100000 to the 30000 degree.
Let's be nice and expect every 'new generation' to appear after one year. (must be quiet accurate avg)

Then we need 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0 years to finally have a working human being !

just kidding, this is only 1 out of 100000 to the 1000th degree. Multiply it with 30, and you have the number of years you need for the MOST SIMPLISTIC appearance of humanity (only) by natural selection.

gens made evolution so old fashioned.
You need more than natural selection my friend. Much more !
You need a very creative and briliant brain !

After typing 1000 zero's I feel the temptation to start to sleep !
j/k don't worry about me, I copied / pasted

CyberShy

	14-01-2002 08:11									#143
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy the arc has been found by numerous people on the Ararat. Besides that do satelite pictures show something strange that could be the arc, buried in ice.

Correction: numerous people claimed that they had found the ark. The ark used by Noah.

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy Let's make it easy, let's say an eye needs 11 gens to work. In that case an eye can only 'evolve' in 100000 to the 11th degree cases. This must have happened all at once, since 'natural selection' will for sure have eliminated all those weak creatures with 'half working' eyes.

Your argument has been thorough refuted before. The fatal flaw in your argument is that an organ such as the eye must be formed in entirely. This is clearly false. Huge numbers of species have eyes; these eyes are vastly different. Some of the eyes are "half formed," i.e., they aren't as functional as human eyes.

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy an you even imagine how any organism could ever have evolved into a mamal, with two different sexes ? We're not talking about 11 gens anymore. Will it be 100 ? Let's be nice to you, and act like only 100 gens are involved with the organs that are needed for reproduction. Then 1 out of 100000 to the 100th degree will result into a working mamal.

Hm. A completely flawed understanding of probability. No need even for refutation.

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy I'm going to tell you that you need a hell lot more time than only 3 billion years!

That's because your math is flawed

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy In our case, even the most simplistic evolutionair model (one lap, from one-cell organism into human) would require a 30000 gen-change.

That's not an evolutionary model. That's bollocks.

	14-01-2002 08:30									#144
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy We move on with ranskaldan (new civ3 player ? Welcome to the debate !)

mmm thank you.

quote: Let's make it easy, let's say an eye needs 11 gens to work. In that case an eye can only 'evolve' in 100000 to the 11th degree cases. This must have happened all at once, since 'natural selection' will for sure have eliminated all those weak creatures with 'half working' eyes.

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay...eye_stages.html

quote: Can you even imagine how any organism could ever have evolved into a mamal, with two different sexes ? We're not talking about 11 gens anymore. Will it be 100 ? Let's be nice to you, and act like only 100 gens are involved with the organs that are needed for reproduction. Then 1 out of 100000 to the 100th degree will result into a working mamal.

Umm...... actually that is not how it works. see below.

quote: I'm going to tell you that you need a hell lot more time than only 3 billion years ! For sure if you take into account that the human body consists out of 30000 gens. Our case, even the most simplistic evolutionair model (one lap, from one-cell organism into human) would require a 30000 gen-change. that's 1 change out of 100000 to the 30000 degree. Let's be nice and expect every 'new generation' to appear after one year. (must be quiet accurate avg)

Which isn't how evolution works.
It isn't a one-step process.
You aren't taking a bacteria and hoping it would become a human being.
The mutations occur one after another.

It's like..... instead of taking one million dice and rolling them at the same time hoping to get a six all together(which will take you forever). (The chance would be six to the one millionth power.)

It's more like taking one dice and trying to roll six one million times. Which should take about six million tries. Which isn't a lot.

	14-01-2002 11:56									#145
	The myth of evolution Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

or if you repeat a lie often enough it will evolve into truth

Ok, what have we got so far?

Two interesting issues have been adressed:

*Beneficial mutations (a term ranskaldan introduced)
Some have tried to reply to this, but all they came up with was experiments in natural selection and one experiment where the immune systems of bacterias repel an hostile attack. There has been nothing, I repeat nothing on beneficial mutations experiments.

*Probability
A Nobel Prize winner in chemistry said the following: “It is impossible to believe in evolution theory, but I still believe it”. This is a top notch scientist. I already told you guys evolution theory had not been proven. Did you listen? No. You guys say: “Evolution theory is not only possible, it is proven!”. Someone needs to hand over his Nobel Prize to one of the teenagers in this thread. (I could make an example to illustrate the probabilities, but I will save it for later).

Conclusion for now: There has been several posts where ‘evolutionists’ in this thread has had a chance to address the above mentioned issues. Not one, I repeat not one of you have adequately answered. So is it gonna happen? Hmmmm…Doesn’t seem like it does it? Unless you have something totally new to cough up?

	14-01-2002 12:52									#146
	Re: The myth of evolution Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Lars-E *Beneficial mutations (a term ranskaldan introduced) Some have tried to reply to this, but all they came up with was experiments in natural selection and one experiment where the immune systems of bacterias repel an hostile attack. There has been nothing, I repeat nothing on beneficial mutations experiments.

The term "beneficial mutations" is propably older than the person behind the name ranskaldan - it is not his introduction. Some butterflies have beneficially mutated due to the increased pollution: they have changed the colour of their wings to match with the lichen-covered trees (the increase of lichen is due to the pollution).

quote: *Probability A Nobel Prize winner in chemistry said the following: “It is impossible to believe in evolution theory, but I still believe it”. This is a top notch scientist. I already told you guys evolution theory had not been proven.

If a Nobel Prize winner says that it is impossible to believe in the theory of evolution, it doesn't mean it hasn't been proven. Maybe he just was making a personal statement.

BTW, how propable is this:
Think about the mammal embryos. in the beginning they look all alike. How come? Maybe they are all evolved from one mammal species from 300 million years ago?

	14-01-2002 13:46									#147
	Re: Re: The myth of evolution Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Some butterflies have beneficially mutated due to the increased pollution: they have changed the colour of their wings to match with the lichen-covered trees (the increase of lichen is due to the pollution).

The change in color is proof of mutation? Chamelons change colors too. Quite often. Now if changing colors is proof of mutation than chameleons mutate every day. Do they?

I had breakfast this morning. That proofs I was hungry. But I'm afraid it doesn't. I had breakfast, but was not hungry. There could be a lot of reasons as to why I had breakfast.

quote: If a Nobel Prize winner says that it is impossible to believe in the theory of evolution, it doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.

If it had been proven it would be easier for him to believe in, ey? One scientist put it like this: Humans walk around in a state of awe - we won the big lottery - evolution.

You guys are quite contrary to the true believers -evolution scientists saying: It is proven.

( I saw a girl riding a horse yesterday - she was gazing at the sky in a state of awe. Doesn't prove she was thinking she won the big evolution lottery, does it? There could be a million reasons for her mental state...)

Of all the lottery tickets out there you know you'll draw the one marked with evolution. Did you look thru all the tickets beforehand? No. But you just know - someone said it had been proven (no scientist though) so it must be true. We must pledge allegiance to the authority figures, professors, and our nextdoor neighboor, average Joe every day. It is so easy flowing with the stream - copying the thoughts of mainstream. Takes no effort really. And you don't have to think and be independent.

quote: BTW, how propable is this: Think about the mammal embryos. in the beginning they look all alike. How come? Maybe they are all evolved from one mammal species from 300 million years ago?

Maybe or maybe there are 300 other million reasons?

	14-01-2002 15:17									#148
	Re: Re: Re: The myth of evolution Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Lars-E The change in color is proof of mutation? Chamelons change colors too. Quite often. Now if changing colors is proof of mutation than chameleons mutate every day. Do they?

I don't know, but aren't the chameleons skin cells made that way... that they can change the colouring. The cells on butterfly's wings aren't. Thus they have had mutated (or somebody is painting them) And this mutation had only happened in one century (the wings of the same species used to be white, now they are grey).... or has god been busy painting them?

quote: Maybe or maybe there are 300 other million reasons

Can you give one reason of the possible 300 million reasons (about embryo's similarities)?

	14-01-2002 15:29									#149
	Re: Re: Re: Re: The myth of evolution Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by aaglo I don't know, but aren't the chameleons skin cells made that way... that they can change the colouring. The cells on butterfly's wings aren't. Thus they have had mutated (or somebody is painting them) And this mutation had only happened in one century (the wings of the same species used to be white, now they are grey).... or has god been busy painting them? In one century. That slow huh? The earth must be trillions of years old. Can you give one reason of the possible 300 million reasons (about embryo's similarities)?

Here's 3:

Chance?
Corrolation with sunspots?
There is something similar between mammals?

	14-01-2002 15:36									#150
	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The myth of evolution Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Lars-E Here's 3: Chance? Corrolation with sunspots? There is something similar between mammals?

Chance? ...ok...
Corrolation with sunspots? You've gotta be kidding
There is something similar between mammals? Can you tell me why there are similarities between mammals? The best theory so far is evolution.