 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
I dont think that you deny the fact that the protiens that all living cells use to toady are exterminely complex. I suppose that one could say that the truely simplist protien would be one with 2,3,4 amino acids in it. The question here is could such a protein be used by any knid of cell that ever existed? |
That really isn't the question though. You are still talking about cells and which is not likely to be the first life. Life almost certainly started as a self reproducing molecule and its likely that it wasn't protein.
Some proteins are very short. Most of the short ones are what are called polypeptides. A dozen or so amino acids long. Perhaps less for some, I am not a bio-chemist so I don't know the shortest. Also the length of modern proteins are not likely to be the same as the earliest proteins even after cells were developed.
Also there are two basic kinds of celular life. Prokaryotes and eukaryotes. We are eukaryotes, we have complex cells with a nucleus and what look very much like symbiotic ex bacteria in every single cell called mitochondria. Mitochondria have their own DNA that is seperate from the DNA in the nucleus. Mitocondria are inherented from the female side only. You and I have no mitochondrial DNA from our fathers only our mothers.
Thats one of the bits of evidence against the flood. Only four women on the Ark means we would only have four lines of mitochondrial DNA for whole human race. In 4400 years there isn't enough time to mutate to the level of diversity we see today. That level shows us as being at least 100,000 years old as a species.
Prokaryotes are the simpler form of life. None are multicellur like many eukaryotes are. Bacteria are prokaryotes. They have no nucleus and no mitochondria. The links that follows for ancient cells are all prokaryotes. The protein chains are generally shorter and they don't have as many of the proteins we have, not even in simpler forms. For instance they don't have homeobox genes because those controll cell growth in multicellular life.
Speaking of homeobox genes. Those can produce proteins that are considerably shorter than that example you were using. 60 amino acids. Not exactly 2000 is it. True it isn't a dozen but then it never even devloped untill life had been around for billions of years.
http://www.biosci.ki.se/groups/tbu/homeo.html
quote:
Anyways the main thing I was getting at is the protiens are complex. Very complex. |
The main thing I was getting at there was the numbers were intended to make things look more complex than is at all reasonable.
quote:
Anyways that statistic was just looking at one of the most simplist protiens that we can see today. |
It wasn't. It only claimed it was. Which is why I have no respect for the source. Note how the protein wasn't mentioned. If they were being truly honest they would picked one by name.
Of course then they could be checked on. It could be pointed out that the protein had many variations and that all of them still worked. They don't want anyone to notice that their claim that the protein must be perfect in every detail is a false claim.
quote:
But you right there are all kinds of different protiens out there that are used by the cell. But I guess it could be just consider that even the simplist protiens that we see today are very complex in nature. |
But you don't have to guess. Its not true. Most are very complex but those are proteins that have been evolving for literly billions of years.
quote:
There are only certain protiens that will work, and other simply will not work in current cells, and what you considered simple cells that existed long ago. |
Yes and how many is that? How many thousands can perform a significant function? Which function? You are being very vague.
quote:
I would like to know is there any fosils of what you considered the earlist cell to have ever existed?
I really mean this as a honest question. Can you provided any detailed info on this? Can you find major scienticfic studies done on this subject? Oe at least give me a good place to start to find this info. |
Cells are made up of parts that are essentialy mere molecules. How could that fosilize when ancient fossils no longer have their original materials most of the time.
However there are stuctures that look remarkably like a fossilized cell. Lets see what I can find. I know there are rocks from billions of years ago that look much like a modern collection of blue-green algae called a stromatolite. Wether they have much detail is another question.
Site on Australian Stromatolites
http://www.dme.wa.gov.au/ancientfossils/
No there aren't any individual fossil cells there. Didn't expect any but they are the oldest such formation.
http://cushforams.niu.edu/Stromato.htm
That does have some photos showing fossil cells but the best shots are a mere 850 million years old. There is another less clear shot of a 2 billion year old cyanobacteria colony.
That sort of life is from before the earth had a oxygen atmosphere. The earliest life produced oxygen as a waste product and it was absorbed by chemicals such as soluble iron. That is where most of our iron deposits seem to have come from. As the iron salts in water were exposed to oxygen the iron formed iron oxides and then precipitated out of solution forming layers of rust. It took a long time to use up all the iron. Untill the iron was all used oxygen USING life could not develop.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html
Good shots of 850 million year old bacteria.
That one above turns out to be from a site in my favorites. Realy good site on paleontology in general. Here is the home page for it.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/index.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lung
|
 |
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999
time: 15:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
evolution is crap. To think you can make nothing outta somthing is absurd. If nothing is there, nothing is there. You dont have a sterilized world, then one day its teaming with bacteria.
Fish dont hop out of the ocean 30 million years after there appearance, later cause they decide they wanted to one day breathe on land
And some single cell bacteria didnt crawl out of a volcanic vent to start the process.
personally I dont know what to believe. I think earth is as old time...things have always been here. How humans got here is still a mystery.
edit:drunken postings |
The only thing funnier than Faded Glory is a drunken Faded Glory 
It's good to see you give the pot another good stir, my friend 
It's been said before, FG, that evolution and the creation of life are two seperate debates. The creation of life is harder to debate, although interactions of non-biological molecules to form more complex molecules is giving insights into possible means for it to happen. However, for the sake of this argument, let's stick to biological evolution.
The first question we must ask is - do biological lifeforms change over time? Well, we know we can change animals and plants by interfering with their reproduction, for example, with dog breeding. This is not proof that it occurs naturally, but the next question is - does it? Fossil evidence says yes. For example, human skulls of 50,000 years ago had a larger cranial capacity. Either humans changed or they weren't human. Either way, it proves that something has changed, otherwise the larger-craniumed humans would still be around. There are mountains of other evidence of biological change. Humans have appendixes which are mostly useless. Did they shrink or were they put there for no reason? There is simply no way of getting around the fact that things change, organic or otherwise.
The only sensible course of action is for creationists to retreat to the beginning of biology on earth. Claiming that life exists as it always has is so tenuous as to be disregarded. Our own planet changes. We see hills eroded, climate change, water temperatures change - the list goes on. No one disputes than plants and animals are finely suited to their environments. However, if their environments have changed, how have plants and animals managed to remain suited to their environment if they haven't changed?!! Even god changing them doesn't escape the fact they they have also changed. Wild animals are easily scared. Why? Because they might get killed if they trust an animal such as us that can kill them. So why are domesticated animals docile? Because they benefit greatly by being brave enough to approach humans in order to obtain scraps. It's simply a risk versus reward scenario. If you kill all the brave ones, only the easily scared survive. However, if you feed the brave ones, they flourish. More food = more breeding. We can see the differences between the domestic dog and wild dogs. Why? Because their environment changed.
Creationists have a problems with animals supposedly 'changing deliberately'. However, this is a misnomer, as it does not need to be deliberate, any more than you have to think in order to breathe. You don't 'react' to your environment. It influences you, whether you like it or not. It's worth keeping in mind that only humans consciously think, so it doesn't apply to any other species. Evolution is quite simply cause and effect. This is completely and entirely consistent with everything else in the universe.
If you can't visualise the concept of evolution, FG, perhaps you need a few more beers
|
|
| |
|
|
|
faded glory
|
 |
This trash talking 2 bit dope dealer is about to learn respect for the law
Jan 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
hmm...the whole thing is crap. Ill give the stinkpot another stir tonight, but I can't straight now. I have to work in 6 hours and im gonna roll into work, tired, looking like total crap (Cursed Beer and Apolyton!)
quote:
The only thing funnier than Faded Glory is a drunken Faded Glory |
You derelict. Your worse than I am I bet. I saw the Lung ambrose web thingie. . You swine!
quote:
It's been said before, FG, that evolution and the creation of life are two seperate debates. The creation of life is harder to debate, although interactions of non-biological molecules to form more complex molecules is giving insights into possible means for it to happen. However, for the sake of this argument, let's stick to biological evolution.
|
Very well...
quote:
The first question we must ask is - do biological lifeforms change over time? Well, we know we can change animals and plants by interfering with their reproduction, for example, with dog breeding. This is not proof that it occurs naturally, but the next question is - does it? Fossil evidence says yes. For example, human skulls of 50,000 years ago had a larger cranial capacity. Either humans changed or they weren't human. Either way, it proves that something has changed, otherwise the larger-craniumed humans would still be around. There are mountains of other evidence of biological change. Humans have appendixes which are mostly useless. Did they shrink or were they put there for no reason? There is simply no way of getting around the fact that things change, organic or otherwise.
|
They do? Breeding/mixing dogs keeps them inside the Canine thingy or species. whatever.....Just because you cross a Bulldog and Shitzu, you dont get evolution. You get bullshit. Anyway there children, they dont become mutant werewolves after 10 million years. The human appendix thing its always interested me. Perhaps we lost it during evolution. But how come are 'primate' ancestors have appendix? Useless, just like ours. So nothing was there. was it? Just a small pouch...
quote:
The only sensible course of action is for creationists to retreat to the beginning of biology on earth. Claiming that life exists as it always has is so tenuous as to be disregarded. Our own planet changes. |
It has! Oh Im not a raving jesus nut. I am a creationist, in that I believe somthing, some supreme being did this. It just didnt happen at random. Again. Somthing out of nothing. If all the universe was created via 'bang'.....what was before the bang? You cant say nothing..(I dont know the inner workings of that physics crap anyway)
quote:
We see hills eroded, climate change, water temperatures change - the list goes on. No one disputes than plants and animals are finely suited to their environments. However, if their environments have changed, how have plants and animals managed to remain suited to their environment if they haven't changed?!! |
I also see myself changing all the time. Its called aging.....and about the enviroments. Who knows. They havent proven anything to support evoltion. Just some crap arguements and a bag of smelly poo from the stone age.
quote:
. For example, human skulls of 50,000 years ago had a larger cranial capacity. Either humans changed or they weren't human. Either way, it proves that something has changed, otherwise the larger-craniumed humans would still be around. There are mountains of other evidence of biological change. Humans have appendixes which are mostly useless. Did they shrink or were they put there for no reason? There is simply no way of getting around the fact that things change, organic or otherwise. |
50,000 years ago? Whoa! Waita minute. Are you ABSOLUTELY. POSITIVELY...sure that these are humans and not ape-men? Bye Ape-Men I mean bigfoot or neandertal...how do you know these are human ancestors and not just some race of savage competiting monkeys that we humans exterminated. They could of lived along side us? Do you know? No you dont. Hell niether do I.
quote:
Creationists have a problems with animals supposedly 'changing deliberately'. However, this is a misnomer, as it does not need to be deliberate, any more than you have to think in order to breathe. You don't 'react' to your environment. It influences you, whether you like it or not. It's worth keeping in mind that only humans consciously think, so it doesn't apply to any other species. Evolution is quite simply cause and effect. This is completely and entirely consistent with everything else in the universe |
Sorry.....things dont adapt over such long periods of time. Think about it. Ape's will be ape's, Fish ; fish, Humans, Humans. To say you know it all is wrong, cause you dont. Yours and mine, are different theorys . Meaning we cant prove jack ****. But lets give it a rest. You cant be sure evolution happens. I cant besure god exists.....owell. I really cant think straight now. ill pick this up tommorrow.
Thats my final word on the issue.
quote:
If you can't visualise the concept of evolution, FG, perhaps you need a few more beers |
I know what evolution is about. I learned it all through school...through detail. I just dont believe my descendants were dung flinging monkeys. Oh and I think I can visualize a few more beers?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adalbertus
The article (don't have time to read the other links, though) does not show that mathematics is not a structure of ourselves. |
It shows that we discover it.
quote:
It is not that we freely created maths (the only freedom we have is to choose axioms and define things). But it is still a structure of ourselves which we discover. |
Nonsense. There is no reason at all to says its a human structure.
quote:
We can do maths entirely by thinking, i. e. exploring our brain. "Turing machine" is not a counter example because it is also a structure made in our brain. |
If we couldn't do math by thinking we wouldn't be able to do it at all. So that has no meaning to your claim. I allready pointed out the we can do math that is outside our brain capicity to percieve.
So prove your point. You are only handwaving. Flopping more than waving really. To vague to really be handwaving.
quote:
Logical Realist:
To cut things short:
1) I agree (and always agreed, but you didn't seem to notice) that for Descartes' claim you need to accept logic as universal truth. As you will have to do when doing any science.
2) However, the need to accept logic as universal truth is not a proof that it actually is. All attempts to prove logic as a universal truth will have to use logic, and therefore are circular. |
All attempts to disprove it are circular. Yours sure has been anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
 |
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lung
I have a sparkling explanation to Earth's biodiversity - evolution  |
Why am I not surprised?
That's only sparkling in your own mind, buddy. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this subject.
I find it amazing how evolutionists take a side so easily, without thinking on how important or not are some missing links to give the minimum credit to the theory! Yet, you defend it with all your energy!
So, since I can't think for you (despite thinking for myself), we will never talk about details, because you don't know any details on the subject.
You keep blending mutation with evolution! And while I do backup that mutations occur, causing deformations on a specie suffering from the mutating event, it does NOT cause a new specie! That's why I keep saying that there's no evolution, while you say there's lot's of evidence on evolution! So keep in mind that there isn't! Only evidence for mutations!
quote:
Originally posted by Lung
My grandparents used to be dog breeders, yet do not believe in evolution. So, they can change dogs over generations through deliberate selection, but a changing environment cannot do so by natural means? |
But they'll always be dogs, won't they?
Are your grandparents creating a new specie? No, they aren't. 
quote:
Originally posted by Lung
The only reason why people persist with such a perposterous notion that biology (and everything else) does not change over time is because it says to the contrary in the bible, or does it? Theologists don't like evolution because it implies that god didn't create everything. The argument comes down to:
a) It was written in a book;
versus
b) Piles of evidence to the contrary exists. |
Uuuuuuh, yeah, tons of piles! Too bad no one knows where those piles may be, or what they might have as evidence!
But you don't need to use the Bible argument Lung. If I didn't, why do you? I'm debating from a scientific standpoint! Am I bothering anyone this way?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
I find it amazing how evolutionists take a side so easily, without thinking on how important or not are some missing links to give the minimum credit to the theory! Yet, you defend it with all your energy! |
Because the missing links are NOT important!
As Vagrant said earlier:
quote:
About the Bible: We can safely say that it is a load of [naughty], because we do not know for certain how many steps Jesus took on his journey to be crusified. No one can prove the exact number of steps, so therefore the Bible must be rubbish. Let's abolish it before it is too late. |
That's what creationists are trying to do to evolution: to abolish it because scientists don't know everything.
But the main reason we defend it "with all our energy" is because it's under attack from the forces of ignorance and deceit. There is no doubt that Biblical creationism is false. And there is no doubt that Biblical creationism is behind the facade of these so-called "scientific" attacks on evolution.
quote:
So, since I can't think for you (despite thinking for myself), we will never talk about details, because you don't know any details on the subject.
You keep blending mutation with evolution! And while I do backup that mutations occur, causing deformations on a specie suffering from the mutating event, it does NOT cause a new specie! That's why I keep saying that there's no evolution, while you say there's lot's of evidence on evolution! So keep in mind that there isn't! Only evidence for mutations! |
...Uh, dude, mutations ARE evolution. And so is natural selection. Evolution is natural selection from a pool of genes created by mutations. If you have mutation and natural selection, you have evolution. There is no doubt that evolution is real.
quote:
Uuuuuuh, yeah, tons of piles! Too bad no one knows where those piles may be, or what they might have as evidence! |
"No one knows"?
Sure, and "no one knows" Hebrew or Greek, so "no one" can read the Bible. Makes about as much sense.
The simple fact is that a vast number of people DO know about the evidence. Creationists, however, do not. For instance, I think it's rather significant that I can't find ANY creationist "expert" with a degree in Evolutionary Biology. The "creation science" movement apparently consists entirely of people who are ignorant of the very science they seek to oppose!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
|
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Because the missing links are NOT important! |
That's just it? 
So, what's important after all? (Like you were going to tell us)
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
But the main reason we defend it "with all our energy" is because it's under attack from the forces of ignorance and deceit. There is no doubt that Biblical creationism is false. And there is no doubt that Biblical creationism is behind the facade of these so-called "scientific" attacks on evolution. |
If they aren't scientific, then you can easily counter-argument them. Like to what I do with your statements over and over!
It is true that there are fallacies in several creationists arguments, as you stated in earlier posts, but that doesn't apply to what I say, and I don't care about what others say wrong.
If others are ignorant, it doesn't make me an ignorant too.
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
...Uh, dude, mutations ARE evolution. And so is natural selection. Evolution is natural selection from a pool of genes created by mutations. If you have mutation and natural selection, you have evolution. There is no doubt that evolution is real. |
Aha! So, you don't know the semantic meaning between the word evolution and the word mutation!
Well I sugest you check it! Because a mutation doesn't cause evolution! You can see that in the fruit fly experiments! They mutated, they bred mutated flies, but:
1. They didn't stop being fruit flies
2. They were all weaker than the unmutated fruit flies
3. When removed from the mutating radiations, and after some breeding generations from the mutated flies, the offsprings were original fruit flies because the ADN has the ability to repair itself! This is ONE of the reasons why there isn't and never was evolution! Because the ADN has the ability to repair itself! Now since we already have the ozone layer for several million years, please explain where in the World could such biodiversity be evolved.
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
"No one knows"?
Sure, and "no one knows" Hebrew or Greek, so "no one" can read the Bible. Makes about as much sense.
The simple fact is that a vast number of people DO know about the evidence. Creationists, however, do not. For instance, I think it's rather significant that I can't find ANY creationist "expert" with a degree in Evolutionary Biology. The "creation science" movement apparently consists entirely of people who are ignorant of the very science they seek to oppose! |
Hey wiseguy, how many missing passages are there in the Bible that weren't translated because no one could explain it?
If you don't understand the Bible in your native language, that's another problem.
And don't call others being ignorant about something you are also ignorant. No one will have a very nice oppinion from you this way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adalbertus
|
 |
Cologne, Germany
Feb 2001
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Ethelred:
It shows that we discover it. |
It claims that we discover it. I don't disagree with that mathematics is a discovering. But what we are discovering is a structure of ourselves (not a structure we made ourselves!).
quote:
Nonsense. There is no reason at all to says its a human structure. |
Nonsense. If it were not, we wouldn't be able to do maths without constant reference to something outside. This exactly is the difference between maths and natural sciences.
quote:
If we couldn't do math by thinking we wouldn't be able to do it at all. |
Missed the point. My point was that we can do maths by only thinking. We cannot do physics/chemistry/biology by only thinking. Ok, you can play with physical models, but if you don't test them against experiments, it's just nice physical models.
quote:
So that has no meaning to your claim. I allready pointed out the we can do math that is outside our brain capicity to percieve. |
You tried to but you didn't. What the omega people (forgot his name) did do they obviously did perceive. What they did not percieve isn't maths anyone did do. The fact that there are things that belong to the realm of maths are outside the grasp of the human brain is no proof that they have a reality outside the human brain. A (admittedly silly) example: nobody knows what aasnvgafhga is, thus it is outside the grasp of the human brain, but it has no reality outside the human brain.
quote:
All attempts to disprove it are circular. Yours sure has been anyway. |
If you had read my posts you could have observed that I never tried to prove that logic has no existence outside of the human brain. I said that we cannot be sure about logic being a universal truth. Even if we are bound to use it as such (or stop thinking at all).
The thing is that we have some structures in ourselves (logic, maths, but also intuition) which we use to understand what is outside. This is analog to painting a picture. The picture is not the same thing as what is painted.
We have no guarantee that one of those structures in ourselves is a 1:1 correspondence to something found in nature. For intuition it is already disproved by relativity and quantum theory. There is no reason why we never should reach such a point with maths and logic. And maybe we already have reached this point in the probability description of quantum mechanics. We don't know if quantum fluctuations are really random, a god weaving the world or something else. The assumption of a hidden parameter has been disproved, and so we cannot go deeper into it (at the moment, at least).
Logical Realist:
I still would like to see a disproval of Descartes' claim under the assumption that logic is a universal truth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I agree with our first scource, yes mutations that occur in the DNA of living things can have a benifical effect on the orginism it occurs in. Say a mutation occured in a plant that allowed its roots to grow longer and make it earier for it to get water would be an example of this, note this is just an example I made up. It would be similar to the orginism in the souce you site have had a mutation occur in them that allows them to consum some sort of toxic waste in their envirment. But most mutations that occur in living things are harmfull or even leathel to the living thing. Also these living things in which the mutations occur are still what they were before the muatation, they have not changed into a new species.
DNA has the ability to repair mutations in its genic code, and does do this all the time.
If evolution were true and interminate forms between the species existed, then there would be evidence of their existence in the fosil record. These missing links are very important to the theory of Evolution. Since the time of Darwin, no such interminate forms between species have been found. If you think this is incorrect show me a fosil between species that has been found, and we will see who is right.
You can change dog through breeding to a limited extent, and in the end they will still be dogs, just different varrieties of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Again missunderstanding the stuff I posted. The stats i posted was looking at all the possible proteins that could be formed form any 10 amino acids. I dont see how this is wrong, decitfull or twisting of the facts. Again it most likely most of my fault for not being clear, thought that people would understand this. Again it is based how many different protiens can be formed form any ten amino acids.
Can you explain to me how self reproducing mocules "evolve" as you say? Any studies that have been done on this subject? Have there been any lab experiments with these self reproducing mocules that show that they can change shape over time?
quote:
Ethelred
That really isn't the question though. You are still talking about cells and which is not likely to be the first life. Life almost certainly started as a self reproducing molecule and its likely that it wasn't protein.
Some proteins are very short. Most of the short ones are what are called polypeptides. A dozen or so amino acids long. Perhaps less for some, I am not a bio-chemist so I don't know the shortest. Also the length of modern proteins are not likely to be the same as the earliest proteins even after cells were developed.
Also there are two basic kinds of celular life. Prokaryotes and eukaryotes. We are eukaryotes, we have complex cells with a nucleus and what look very much like symbiotic ex bacteria in every single cell called mitochondria. Mitochondria have their own DNA that is seperate from the DNA in the nucleus. Mitocondria are inherented from the female side only. You and I have no mitochondrial DNA from our fathers only our mothers.
Thats one of the bits of evidence against the flood. Only four women on the Ark means we would only have four lines of mitochondrial DNA for whole human race. In 4400 years there isn't enough time to mutate to the level of diversity we see today. That level shows us as being at least 100,000 years old as a species.
Prokaryotes are the simpler form of life. None are multicellur like many eukaryotes are. Bacteria are prokaryotes. They have no nucleus and no mitochondria. The links that follows for ancient cells are all prokaryotes. The protein chains are generally shorter and they don't have as many of the proteins we have, not even in simpler forms. For instance they don't have homeobox genes because those controll cell growth in multicellular life.
Speaking of homeobox genes. Those can produce proteins that are considerably shorter than that example you were using. 60 amino acids. Not exactly 2000 is it. True it isn't a dozen but then it never even devloped untill life had been around for billions of years.
|
I was never taking about a protein with 2000 amino acids, I said that the cells we see today need 2000 protiens to be able to live and function properly
There have been studies done on mitochondrial DNA to see if humans have common acestery. I will post them latter and comment on them. I want to make sure I back up what I say and that it is not missleading information as you think is the casee with very peice of data or info I post Ethelred. There is a lot of information I have read form scientist that support evolution and I dont think that the info they hgave is twisting of facts. Often times the problem lies in interpeting the evidence. Sometimes scientist think that evidence points to one thing, but latter find out it points to anther. This just happens, because we are human and make misstakes. Also too scientist can be prejudice and missinterpet evidence because of this, on both sides of this debate and when dealing with other fields of study in science.
Last edited by Jack_www on 10-04-2002 at 01:24
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adalbertus
A lot of this evidence already has been found. On the other hand you cannot expect to find too much, because
1) organisms have the tendency to decay. To be conserved over a million years, even bones need special conditions. So remainders of only a little fraction of individuals that lived could be found today
2) Only by chance you can find these remainders. Imagine you would have to dig through all of africa to find one of 10000 cars which are buried in some place you don't have any idea of. |
The fact is these missing links have not been found yet, so how can people who support it claim that it is fact that has been supported with lots of evidence? At the very best we can say it is a theory, or maybe still a hyposthesis, but not a proven scientific fact.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
-=Vagrant=-
|
 |
here and there
Feb 2002
time: 07:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
If evolution were true and interminate forms between the species existed, then there would be evidence of their existence in the fosil record. These missing links are very important to the theory of Evolution. Since the time of Darwin, no such interminate forms between species have been found. If you think this is incorrect show me a fosil between species that has been found, and we will see who is right.
|
SameshIt different day (sigh). Read a book, go to a museum of geology, biology, and the rest! If you don't want to find out about this evolution, then don't start...wait! You're just a troll!
quote:
You can change dog through breeding to a limited extent, and in the end they will still be dogs, just different varrieties of them. |
Guess what? Yes, you are correct! And I agree with you 100%! However, there are new species born due to macroevolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
Zealot:
quote:
Aha! So, you don't know the semantic meaning between the word evolution and the word mutation! |
Of course I do. Mutation + natural selection = evolution.
Evolution is undeniable. Mutations have been observed (including beneficial mutations), natural selection has been observed, the formation of new species has been observed. Even creationists cannot deny this: that's why they call it "microevolution" and pretend that there is some magical barrier which separates "microevolution" from "macroevolution".
And the existence of DNA repair mechanisms isn't enough to halt evolution. Why should it? They aren't 100% reliable. If they were, then there'd be no problem with antibiotic-resistant "superbugs": the genome of the bug would be continually "reset", preventing the evolution of the resistant strain. This, unfortunately, does not happen.
Jack_www:
quote:
If evolution were true and interminate forms between the species existed, then there would be evidence of their existence in the fosil record. These missing links are very important to the theory of Evolution. Since the time of Darwin, no such interminate forms between species have been found. If you think this is incorrect show me a fosil between species that has been found, and we will see who is right. |
Many thousands have been found. Archaeopteryx, therapsids, hominids: how many do you want?
Of course, the diehard creationist could still deny the obvious by saying (for instance) that all hominids are either "manlike apes" or "apelike men". But it is blatantly false for them to follow that by claiming "missing links". The links aren't missing. We see exactly what we should be seeing: manlike apes and apelike men. Transitional forms.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
In all the examples you state of claiming new species are being formed through evolution, are they really new species?
Like I said, mutations occur in living things. Most often then not, these mutations are leathal, or at very least harmfull giving the living organism a dissanvantage. These mutations are random accendents. What I was refering to is transional links between spcies. With example of flight. In the fosil record we see no interminate stages of animals with partly formed wings which could have been used for something else. All fosil of flying animals have fully formed wings, and all of them can fly. I looked at the link Ethelred gave me, have to look at it some more, but the fosil they had in there which many scientist believe is first diansore evolving to bird, acuatlly have feather and other features birds have which are fully formed, no interminate forms. If birds evolved from reptiles or simlar animals we would see interminate forms of various features we see on bird today, which we dont. They also adimited that they dont really know how the ablilty of fight came into being, and dont have any fosil records to show how it evolved.
I am familar with these ape-man, what ever you like to call them, like fosils. Some of these so called ape-men are based on a single fargement of jaw bone. I will site such examples.
They can be variations in a certain species, or type of animal, but it is limited to an extent. Dogs will always be dogs, cats will always be cats, bacterria wil always be baccterria, trees will always be tress. We have a great varties of each kind, but they will never evolve into something else.
Again the best we can say with evolution is that it is a theory, and nothing more. It has many problems with it and much of it is based on guess work and conjecture. Hypothesis mostly. Yet so many claim that evolution is an established fact.
Also many scientist who support the theory of evolution do admit that the fosil record contains many wholes, missing links.
All I ask is for people to at least see that life being created is not some idea with no basis. Why cant you accept the possiblity that life was created? For a truely objective study of the evidence we must be opened to both possiblities. But only one is right. There are many people who believe many strange things about the earth bieing created, and they might not even look at any kind of scienefic evidence. Many who claim to believe in the Bible have ruthlessly supressed anyone who changled their beliefs. They have missintreputed the Bible and have twisted it to make it fit there own beliefs. But please do not group all people who believe that life was created with such people. And even if I believed in evolution, I would think the idea that life was created could be a very valid explanation on how life got here.
Does not it seems somewhat logical to conclude that something as complicated as life could be created?
Last edited by Jack_www on 10-04-2002 at 03:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Like I said, mutations occur in living things. Most often then not, these mutations are leathal, or at very least harmfull giving the living organism a dissanvantage. These mutations are random accendents. |
True, but irrelevant. It doesn't actually matter how many mutations are harmful: only that some are beneficial. Even if 99.999% are harmful, natural selection eliminates them.
quote:
What I was refering to is transional links between spcies. With example of flight. In the fosil record we see no interminate stages of animals with partly formed wings which could have been used for something else. All fosil of flying animals have fully formed wings, and all of them can fly. I looked at the link Ethelred gave me, have to look at it some more, but the fosil they had in there which many scientist believe is first diansore evolving to bird, acuatlly have feather and other features birds have which are fully formed, no interminate forms. If birds evolved from reptiles or simlar animals we would see interminate forms of various features we see on bird today, which we dont. They also adimited that they dont really know how the ablilty of fight came into being, and dont have any fosil records to show how it evolved. |
Arcaeopteryx has teeth and wing claws, and a skeleton virtually identical to some land-based creatures of the period. In fact, the resemblance is so good that some creationists have tried to claim that Arcaeopteryx is a fake: that the feathers aren't genuine. It appears from the fossil record that feathers evolved before flight did, possibly as insulation.
quote:
I am familar with these ape-man, what ever you like to call them, like fosils. Some of these so called ape-men are based on a single fargement of jaw bone. I will site such examples. |
And what about the many skeletons? And the fact that the hominids appear between early apes and humans in the sequence?
quote:
They can be variations in a certain species, or type of animal, but it is limited to an extent. Dogs will always be dogs, cats will always be cats, bacterria wil always be baccterria, trees will always be tress. We have a great varties of each kind, but they will never evolve into something else. |
Dogs and cats are both Carnivora, which are a subset of Mammals, itself a subset of Vertebrates... and so on. All living things, and all fossils, can be placed on the branching "tree of life" structure of evolution. There is no visible barrier between "kinds".
quote:
Again the best we can say with evolution is that it is a theory, and nothing more. It has many problems with it and much of it is based on guess work and conjecture. Hypothesis mostly. Yet so many claim that evolution is an established fact. |
The process of evolution is fact. The common descent of all living organisms from shared ancestors is also fact (as shown by DNA analysis etc). The only "hypothesis" is that the fact of evolution is sufficient to account for the fact of common descent: it appears to be sufficient.
quote:
Also many scientist who support the theory of evolution do admit that the fosil record contains many wholes, missing links. |
Of course. We don't have a fossil of every creature that ever lived. But the general pattern is quite clear. We evolved from apes, which evolved from other primates, which evolved from other mammals, which evolved from the therapsids, which evolved from reptiles, which evolved from amphibians, which evolved from fish, which evolved from eel-like vertabrates. This is clear from the pattern of similarities in living organisms, the pattern of DNA relationships, and the fossil record.
quote:
Does not it seems somewhat logical to conclude that something as complicated as life could be created? |
It's possible that some other creative force might have been at work, but there is no evidence of this. It is NOT logical to conclude that species were individually created over millions of years in a sequence which so precisely mimics common descent. It's rather like arguing that the Earth is flat but appears round due to a series of bizarre optical illusions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot
Why am I not surprised? |
Because you know he will tell the truth. The answer to your question was and is evolution.
quote:
That's only sparkling in your own mind, buddy. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this subject. |
In his mind, the mind of nearly every single biologist on Earth and in the evidence the Earth itself shows us.
quote:
I find it amazing how evolutionists take a side so easily, without thinking on how important or not are some missing links to give the minimum credit to the theory! Yet, you defend it with all your energy![.QUOTE]
Its the simple truth. To deny it would be to deny reality.
[QUOTE]
So, since I can't think for you (despite thinking for myself), we will never talk about details, because you don't know any details on the subject. |
You haven't had a single thought of your own here. You have been parroting creationist nonsense.
quote:
You keep blending mutation with evolution! And while I do backup that mutations occur, causing deformations on a specie suffering from the mutating event, it does NOT cause a new specie! |
Its not a blend. Mutation drives evolution. Selection directs it. It can and does create new species. The evidence is clear. The biology is clear. Genetics show how it works. Biologists use the theory to create new foods.
quote:
That's why I keep saying that there's no evolution, while you say there's lot's of evidence on evolution! So keep in mind that there isn't! Only evidence for mutations! |
You keep saying because you think you would be denying the Bible otherwise. You have no other reason for saying it. The evidence is overwhelming. Only a tightly shuttered mind can deny it.
quote:
But they'll always be dogs, won't they?
Are your grandparents creating a new specie? No, they aren't.
|
Our umpteen great grandparents WERE a new species. Dogs ancient ancestors were once a new species. A new species could be made from dogs with perserverence over a long time. You would still call them dogs but only to continue to deny evolution.
quote:
Uuuuuuh, yeah, tons of piles! Too bad no one knows where those piles may be, or what they might have as evidence! |
He knows where to find it. I know where to find it. You don't want to know thats all.
Here are places you can go to see real evidence.
THE site for information on evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/
A biology magazine
http://www.the-scientist.com/homepage.htm
UC Berkeley's Paleontology site.
http://www.the-scientist.com/homepage.htm
Reality vs. the ICR regarding the fossil known as Lucy
http://www.eskimo.com/~pierres/lucy.html#retraction
Specially for you.
Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism:
http://icarus.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html#1.1
quote:
But you don't need to use the Bible argument Lung. If I didn't, why do you? I'm debating from a scientific standpoint! Am I bothering anyone this way? |
You are denying the scientific viewpoint. For religious reasons.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot
That's just it?
So, what's important after all? (Like you were going to tell us)
|
Follow the links I posted. Take a class in biology.
quote:
If they aren't scientific, then you can easily counter-argument them. |
They have been. You merely wave your hands and deny it.
quote:
Like to what I do with your statements over and over! |
Handwaving is what you have been doing.
quote:
It is true that there are fallacies in several creationists arguments, as you stated in earlier posts, but that doesn't apply to what I say, and I don't care about what others say wrong.
If others are ignorant, it doesn't make me an ignorant too. |
You have been using standard falacious creationist arguements. All have been refuted many times.
Its true the ignorance of others does not make you ignorant. But you are borrowing from these ignorant people and are actively avoiding learning. Only you can make yourself ignorant in this era of the internet.
quote:
Aha! So, you don't know the semantic meaning between the word evolution and the word mutation!
Well I sugest you check it! Because a mutation doesn't cause evolution! You can see that in the fruit fly experiments! They mutated, they bred mutated flies, but:
1. They didn't stop being fruit flies
2. They were all weaker than the unmutated fruit flies |
Not all just most, which is to be expected with mutations. There are fruit flys that have had none of the damaging mutations. Fruit flys have been bred with mutations that allow them to live twice as long as normal fruit flies.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scie...tfly001215.html
No they are not a seperate species. However the could become a seperate species given enough time and mutations.
quote:
Hey wiseguy, how many missing passages are there in the Bible that weren't translated because no one could explain it? |
How many were left out because someone didn't like what they said?
quote:
If you don't understand the Bible in your native language, that's another problem.
|
Perhaps you should learn Hebrew well enough to think in it. Many people do. Not just in Israel either.
If you must have the original language as your native language then the Bible really isn't worth much to those that don't speak BOTH Hebrew and Greek as their native languages. So follow your own thinking and give up on it because you claim you can't understand it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adalbertus
It claims that we discover it. I don't disagree with that mathematics is a discovering. But what we are discovering is a structure of ourselves (not a structure we made ourselves!).
|
Show some evidence that multidimensional space equations are inherent in the human mind.
quote:
Nonsense. If it were not, we wouldn't be able to do maths without constant reference to something outside. This exactly is the difference between maths and natural sciences. |
We do math with constant reference to things outside the human mind. Calculus was invented by Newton to help him deal with his theory of Gravity.
So the nonsense is yours. Unless you can show something resembling support for you handwaving.
quote:
Missed the point. My point was that we can do maths by only thinking. We cannot do physics/chemistry/biology by only thinking. Ok, you can play with physical models, but if you don't test them against experiments, it's just nice physical models.
|
I didn't miss the point. You didn't have one. You still don't. Show me were the Mandelbrot quation is hiding in the human mind.
quote:
You tried to but you didn't. What the omega people (forgot his name) did do they obviously did perceive. What they did not percieve isn't maths anyone did do. The fact that there are things that belong to the realm of maths are outside the grasp of the human brain is no proof that they have a reality outside the human brain. A (admittedly silly) example: nobody knows what aasnvgafhga is, thus it is outside the grasp of the human brain, but it has no reality outside the human brain. |
That we can grasp something does not mean it is part of the human brain. That is mere handwaving AND it ignore the reality of modern physics. Phyisics is advancing in Quantum Theory by people looking at what the math tells them despite the fact that is against the way the human mind thinks.
quote:
If you had read my posts you could have observed that I never tried to prove that logic has no existence outside of the human brain. I said that we cannot be sure about logic being a universal truth. Even if we are bound to use it as such (or stop thinking at all). |
I obviously read your posts. You never tried to prove anything. All you are doing is engaging in a freshman bull session with carefull avoidence of what it means. If we can't use our minds to think about things we are just giving up. All you are doing is saying GIVE UP while using logic yourself.
quote:
We have no guarantee that one of those structures in ourselves is a 1:1 correspondence to something found in nature.
|
In fact we have proven quite well that WE DON'T have a one to one correspondence with the Universe. Or math.
quote:
For intuition it is already disproved by relativity and quantum theory. There is no reason why we never should reach such a point with maths and logic. |
Glad you noticed. Now put that with your claim that math is part of the human mind and notice the contradiction. Then toss out your thinking about math being nothing a but a product of evolution.
quote:
And maybe we already have reached this point in the probability description of quantum mechanics. We don't know if quantum fluctuations are really random, a god weaving the world or something else. |
The evidence and the math show it to be random. If a god is doing that it is very busy making every single sub atomic particle appear random without actually being so.
quote:
Logical Realist:
I still would like to see a disproval of Descartes' claim under the assumption that logic is a universal truth. |
It can't be disproved but it can be derided as intelectual m@sturbation which is all it is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
If evolution were true and interminate forms between the species existed, then there would be evidence of their existence in the fosil record. These missing links are very important to the theory of Evolution. |
There are no missing links. This simple to see in that there ARE NO LINKS. Every species is an intermediate form. Except for the ones that go extinct.
quote:
Since the time of Darwin, no such interminate forms between species have been found. |
Of course they have. They aren't intermediate in any sense you are using they simply are a species that later evolved to become another species. Like Australopithecus Afarensis. Its not an ape except in the same sense we are. They aren't men either. Even the creationist can't figure out where to put Lucy but since they have to LIE that there are no imediate species they call Lucy EITHER an ape or a human. Different creationists put call Lucy different things. But they all pretend Lucy isn't intermediate.
So there is one intermediate for you.
quote:
If you think this is incorrect show me a fosil between species that has been found, and we will see who is right. |
Some of these have been posted here allready. I get the feeling they are being avoided by the believers.
The fifth section on intermediate forms and Creationist obfuscation regarding them.
http://icarus.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html#1.1
Lucy
http://www.eskimo.com/~pierres/lucy.html#retraction
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Macro Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
quote:
You can change dog through breeding to a limited extent, and in the end they will still be dogs, just different varrieties of them. |
That is only evidence that you don't understand the time involved. We have breeding dogs for a short period of time. They once were something that was not a dog before we started messing with them.
From Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ link above
Dogs:
Cynodictis (late Eocene) -- First known arctoid (undifferentiated dog/bear).
Hesperocyon (early Oligocene) -- A later arctoid. Compared to miacids like Paroodectes, limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger. From here, the main line of canid evolution can be traced in North America, with bears branching out into a Holarctic distribution.
Cynodesmus (Miocene) -- First true dog. The dog lineage continued through Tomarctus (Pliocene) to the modern dogs, wolves, & foxes, Canis (Pleistocene).
So much for dogs not changing.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-04-2002 10:32
Attachment: 
|
