100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > howzityoume
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Mon 09/24/12 11:24 PM
|
|
LOl! Once again you are more emotional than scientific.
The link I provided showed DECREASED decay with greater solar interaction, not increased decay. This is counter-intuitive because as you say sometimes radioactivity increases with increased particle bombardment. That is why I am saying that if decay can slow down with increased solar activity as proven by Purdue University and the Israel Geological Survey, then it can increase through greater protection from solar activity and cosmic rays. Your reading comprehension is terrible. Reread what I wrote. I don't see where I misunderstood your post. I said "as you say sometimes radioactivity increases with increased particle bombardment." The fact that increased solar activity is now also associated with reduced decay shows that , depending on the type of bombardment, decay can also reduce with increased particle bombardment. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Argon 40 is a stable daughter isotope, and so not really sure how its relevant to radioactive dating, unless you were referring to Potassium 40) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
You are right that the current fluctuations are minimal, I am referring to the more extreme decay changes with a magnetic shield 3 X stronger. MASSIVE FACE PALM.
Ahh stronger . . . as in better able to protect us from these high energy particles . . . btw also better shielding the argon-40 from increased decay rate due to energetic bombardment . . of which we know a lot because we do it in the lab . . . yea, no . . . we physicists don't know a thing about it really. The creationists knows more about biology than biologists and more about physics than physicists! Pure GENIUS! LOl! Once again you are more emotional than scientific. The link I provided showed DECREASED decay with greater solar interaction, not increased decay. This is counter-intuitive because as you say sometimes radioactivity increases with increased particle bombardment. That is why I am saying that if decay can slow down with increased solar activity as proven by Purdue University and the Israel Geological Survey, then it can increase through greater protection from solar activity and cosmic rays. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Wed 09/19/12 11:47 AM
|
|
i don't believe in creation of life by GOD, evolution is only a possibility about creation of life,to believe in that some supernatural power create all living being is not digestible but if we use word evolution of live by interaction of energy and matter then some sense come behind the idea of formation of life in universe and till date its the only idea which seem to be logical,i am not saying that it is the only possibility and Darwin was right i am just supporting idea of evolution and support it until some new research doesn't give new theory about creation of life. I honestly believe creation is just as empirically supported. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Your post is incorrect for a wide variety of reasons. Electromagnetism has nothing to do with it. The relative strengths of the EM field are therefore meaningless. The variation you cite is so small as to be meaningless in the context you are using. Facts: Particles from the sun slow down decay. The magnetic field shields particles from the cosmos. The magnetic field was 3 times stronger in the past. You are right that the current fluctuations are minimal, I am referring to the more extreme decay changes with a magnetic shield 3 X stronger. You apparently missed the point about magnetic fields having nothing to do with it. Solar neutrinos from the Sun's core do not interact this way at all. All of the statements in your post are incorrect. It doesn't look like neutrinos because this was not detected all around the world. It was only in isolated patches that there was a slowdown in decay. this is more consistent with the localized effect of muons. Also neutrinos are consistently produced by the sun and therefore lose density with solar distance, whereas decay does not slow down with solar distance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Your post is incorrect for a wide variety of reasons. Electromagnetism has nothing to do with it. The relative strengths of the EM field are therefore meaningless. The variation you cite is so small as to be meaningless in the context you are using. Facts: Particles from the sun slow down decay. The magnetic field shields particles from the cosmos. The magnetic field was 3 times stronger in the past. You are right that the current fluctuations are minimal, I am referring to the more extreme decay changes with a magnetic shield 3 X stronger. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Guess what? Evolution needs huge time-frames for it to work. Evolution only has the radioactive decay rates of rocks as evidence for these long time-frames. But recent studies have shown that these decay rates are not constant, they are effected by the solar wind. There are a new set of laws:
Old Law: Radioactive decay is an absolute constant , everything has been tried in laboratories to affect the rate without any detectable changes to decay rates The age of ancient rocks can therefore be accurately measured based on recently measured decay rates. Failure of the Old Law: Two tests they have neglected to apply to decay rates: 1) Although they have played around with electromagnetic force-fields in laboratories, when testing decay rates they have not yet increased or decreased the strength of the entire planet's electro-magnetic force-field (which extends for thousands of miles beyond our atmosphere). 2) They have not consistently tested decay rates against the varying strength of solar flares. 2 Better Laws of radioactive decay rates: Law 1: radioactive decay rates slow down when the solar wind is stronger (during solar flares) http://phys.org/news201795438.html Law 2: conversely radioactive decay rates will increase when the solar wind is weaker The electro-magnetic field protects the earth from the solar wind, so we can introduce two more laws: Law 3: (based on law 1) The weaker the field the stronger the solar wind that reaches earth, and the slower the radioactive decay. Law 4: (based on Law 2) Conversely the stronger the field the faster the decay Knowing that earth's magnetic field was at least 300% stronger in the past, we can apply LAW 4, and we have an easy conclusion, radioactive decay was much much faster in the past. Bye bye evolution! Sorry your old dates have been greatly overestimated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
In my opinion, to prove God has created all of this, you first have to prove the existance of God... To quote the OLDEST KNOWN bible " The God created us in their own likeness" How can a singular (God) become a plural (their)? And if you do your research, the whole bible story follows a pattern of stories that has been associated with all major religions and civilisations past and present. A divine birth to a virgin, a murder and a resurection three days later (describing the Suns actions on the winter solstice), and a visitation from a heavenly body (a being that comes down from the sky). This is not a unique story of christianity, but a documented historical series of events that has repeated time and time again, and the evidence for this is cast in stone in various places around the world... My problem with the Darwin Theory is the missing link, where are they, I say they because there cannot of been only one, that is like saying there has only ever been one Neanderthal or one Homoerectus, there should be millions and millions of skeletons that have been discovered, archiologists should be falling over these skeletons at every dig, yet not a single one has been found, Why ?. This alone for me blows the entire theory to bits. how can it even be classed as a theory when it isnt even complete. My understanding of the word theory means it should describe everything from start to finish with NO gaps, until it can do that it isnt even classed as a theory, it is an idea. And in the case of Darwin it is an idea that needs a hell of alot of work... There is a different theory that an advanced civilisation not from this planet has interviened at various stages of our own history, and although I myself refused to believe this when I first heard of it some 20 years ago, my interest and research of the evidence since has not only astounded me, but actually convinced me that this is the most sensible and plausable theory of them all, and seems to be the only one with documented evidence across the board, whereas all of the other theories are based on strange stories and nothing more than hearsay, thats not science, thats Chineese whispers... Interesting! I like a commitment to truth instead of following the crowd. But its entirely possible that even these theories of aliens are incorrect. Ancient civilizations are vastly underestimated regarding technology, and there are numerous inferences to flight, electricity, the advanced use of crystals and ceramics. It has a simple biblical explanation, when you place millions of people together with 900 year life-spans as described in the bible, they can reach much higher levels of technology in the 1750 years before the flood, than the 4000 years since the flood. Some of that knowledge came with noah's family, much of that was lost in th ice-age disaster of about 3800 years ago. It appears there was an earlier civilization that kept most of the technology and passed this on to pyramid cultures throughout the earth. Unfortunately the earth has been through too many declines to retain all that knowledge indefinitely. Aliens are not the only explanation, but I do like your reference to superior beings intervening, this can point to God too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Mon 06/18/12 02:48 AM
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0 Please watch this a few thousand times. Maybe it will sink in eventually. Now regarding his second point, the chromosomal fusion. Many chromosomes of differing organisms match eachother. In illustration, if a Toyota designer is creating a new type of car with some features of the new technology in a Toyota Fortuner and some features in a Toyota Run-X, there is no need to re-invent every feature in the whole car. He will use the best combinations from each car. The same applies to a creationist interpretation of modern genome sequencing, we see matching patterns just like you do. Whole strings of genes will be perfectly matching in a snail in wheat in and a human. We see intelligent design in this, consistent patterns, like an archaeologist scanning the desert for straight lines indicating artificial design. It all speaks to us of a "system". I understand how evolutionists feel that this speaks of common descent, but the one group cannot disprove the other group by signs of DNA matching between species. Even two strings of genes being found in a third species, just shows that mixed combinations make up a unique organism, they can genetically alter plants using this technique, I don't see why God wouldn't have mixed and matched perfect combinations depending on the species. Unfortunately nature cannot do these types of insertions, nature does duplications which when active cause excess proteins which are damaging. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Mon 06/18/12 02:30 AM
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0 Please watch this a few thousand times. Maybe it will sink in eventually. Regarding Neanderthals: That guy says Neanderthals are not human, he also says that that there are more differences between Neanderthals/humans than chimps/humans. In BOTH cases he is simply misunderstanding the evidence put before him. That graph he uses is highlighting the chimps differences and he is completely misunderstanding the graph. The area to the right is where the big differences lie (45-60 differences), unfortunately he's looking at the higher Neanderthal bars rather than the more bars of the chimp in the 45-60 difference range. If he looked at the other graph immediately below the graph in his video he would have understood the evidence way better. http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/04/comparing-neanderthal-and-modern-human.html Neanderthals are humans, their DNA is found in most human races, just like Caucasian DNA is found everywhere too, concentrated in some areas, rare in other areas. You could have Neanderthal descendants. (that's not a veiled insult, I could too - lol) Creationists believe there are many races, some have become extinct, so we have no problem with extinct races. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987568,00.html Researchers compared the Neanderthal genome with the genomes of five living people: one San from southern Africa, one Yoruba from West Africa, one Papua New Guinean, one Han Chinese and one French person. Scientists discovered that 1% to 4% of the latter three DNA samples is shared with Neanderthals — proof that Neanderthals and early modern humans interbred. The absence of Neanderthal DNA in the genomes of the two present-day Africans indicates that interbreeding occurred after some root population of early modern humans left Africa but before the species evolved into distinct groups in Europe and Asia. http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/04/comparing-neanderthal-and-modern-human.html The underlying reason is that most of the genome has little selective value. So the selection pressure on that DNA is pretty much the same in any population, be it Congolese, Danish, or Neanderthal. Of course, once two populations become reproductively isolated, i.e., when they become different species, their DNA will start to drift apart even at genes of low selective value (because of differing patterns of random mutations). But this divergence is very slow. Consequently, it is hard to distinguish between related species that have diverged from each other only over the last 40,000 years. This is why Neanderthals and modern humans still have some overlap, even though their last common ancestor lived over 400,000 years ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Thu 06/14/12 02:32 PM
|
|
Massage, I wanted to thank you for your approach. 
If he really is interested in this subject, he should fully read, and in fact reread the presented evidence.
Deep and narrow investigations have a place, but breath is important, too. Reading graduate levels textbooks cover to cover, or taking several graduate level biology classes, can be so helpful in gaining a broad understanding. In my search for truth on this regard, that lead me from IDiot to science advocate was a long one.... If Howzit is primarily interested in truth for its own sake, even if it ends up not aligning with his current worldview, then he may eventually become an ardent pro-evolution debater. Hozit wrote: Surely the phrase "same inserted sequence" is another way of saying "the same virus", each virus having its own sequence "signature" .
No, I would definitely not make that assumption. I just looked up that virus genome lengths vary from 3,000 to over 1,000,000 base pairs in length. Changing a few base pairs out of a million might justify giving that virus a different designation among some researches, but other researchers would still refer to those two distinct sequences as being from 'the same virus'. (Obviously not meaning some specific, individual virus - like the one little hypothetical guy that just got stuck to the flaps of my heart valve, but instead most times when I say 'that virus' I mean 'that virus variant'). For a virus variant to have its own 'sequence signature' is not the same as having the same identical sequence, end to end. We can (and do) categorize viruses for having sufficiently similar genomes - this doesn't not mean they are identical, end to end. ... 400 ERV's that are in identical positions, its not inconceivable that 7 of them would be both the same type of ERV and the same position.
How many different variants of virus do you think might be inserting genes? I don't know how many viruses there are that can insert their genes into humans, but when we look at viruses in general, I hear there may be well over a million recognizably different virus variants today. here's a list: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19417/table/A7768/?report=objectonly http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19417/ The list is not complete, but shows only 2 human retroviruses. Anyway its not the number of ERV's that exist, but the frequency of mutually observed ERVs in each genome that would affect our statistics, and I have no idea where to find that information. In the meantime there is nothing unlikely about 7 matching retrovirals through random insertions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."
No its not absolute proof, utter nonsense! If two different organisms, thereafter start to show more differences (eg fused chromosome), does nothing to prove they were once the same organism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Thanks for the apology. I haven't always used the phrase "extra beneficial non-viral coding genes" Off topic, but I had to do a double take. Despite my improved understanding of what you really mean, the first meaning I applied to the word pair 'extra beneficial' is "more beneficial than usual". Oh, language. 
LOL well maybe I should change the goalpost and ask for proof of super-beneficial genes! Why not, what would slightly beneficial genes do to bacteria , produce a human? hahaha |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Thu 06/14/12 11:04 AM
|
|
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE5bNeutraltheory.shtml It does not mean what you think it means . . . this is a theme. I see what you mean, thank for pointing this out, the definition does seem to differ to the one I had: Wikipedia: Molecular evolution "The Neutral theory of molecular evolution states that most mutations are deleterious and quickly removed by natural selection, but of the remaining ones, the vast majority are neutral with respect to fitness while the amount of advantageous mutations is vanishingly small. The fate of neutral mutations are governed by genetic drift, and contribute to both nucleotide polymorphism and fixed differences between species.[6][7][8]" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
I believe that Howzit wants definite, irrefutable evidence that this has happened, or specifically, absolutely proven to have happened. The problem with how it could happen is that when you get two duplicate genes that are both protein coding, you get too much protein produced for that trait, and the entire organism is not designed to handle the over-expression of that particular trait. You end up with a damaged mutation (eg Down's syndrome) So the theory and observation both point to damages when you increase the number of protein coding genes in an organism. The best you can get to, is neutral, the sum of the functions in the duplicated genome being equal to the functions that existed previously, commonly referred to as subfuntionalisation. ps I realised that my biological views have already got a name, I adhere to the Neutralists Theory. So if you wish to oppose the Neutralist theory you need : 1) a theoretical mechanism to bypass the damages that extra proteins cause 2) Some observation that this can occur in nature |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Bushido is correct. Howzit's analysis deals with insertion locations, but does not include the size of the set of unique sequences that could be inserted. The fact that humans and non-humans have the same inserted sequence makes it almost impossible for it to happen any other way than from a single insertion event in a common ancestor. Surely the phrase "same inserted sequence" is another way of saying "the same virus", each virus having its own sequence "signature" . These viruses have separate sequences and are identified separately and are named accordingly. For 400 matching virus positions, 7 of these happen to be the same virus. I do not see a statistical problem with this. Maybe someone has the data which virus is most commonly expressed in the 3000 or so HERV's. Without that information we cannot exclude the possibilities I've put forward. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Evolution answers questions, such as why we share an ERV with some primates, and not others. So many facets of evolution answer questions that no other theory has been able to answer. That in and of itself is what supports evolution and makes any other theory seem hollow for lack of the same ability to make predictions. Just back to this, the fact that we cannot find how nature adds an extra beneficial coding gene, points towards complex life forms appearing on earth in an existing complex form. It doesn't PROVE it, its just an observation that adds some evidence to the idea that complex life-forms started out complex. Now according to that theory of sudden appearance, and looking at the matching ERV's between apes and humans we can see a completely different picture. These two primates appeared earth with nearly matching genomes. The ERV's that subsequently inserted into the genome could only match the positions between species when those two species already had the same positions (matching genomes). Statistically when inserting 3000 ERV's into a human, and separately inserting 3000 ERV's into an ape, and only having 22000 gene positions wherein to insert them, this would mean that on average each organism has an insertion every 7th gene. (7,33 to be exact). Thus every 49th gene we should have an ERV position in an ape matching an ERV position in a human, merely through purely RANDOM processes. This would be about 400 matches of ERV positions merely through the high number of ERVs found in both primates. Among those 400 ERV's that are in identical positions, its not inconceivable that 7 of them would be both the same type of ERV and the same position. So the fact that ERV's are found in the same position in both apes and humans merely points to the fact that apes and humans do actually have the same positions (closely matching chromosomal patterns) and so many ERV's are invading each genome. This does not point to evolution, but fits in with the theory of sudden appearance as well, the theory of sudden appearance and subsequent devolution being more observed than the evolution of new added coding genes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
What we have here is someone who "talks" a combination of both without the scientific background to understand version two but is trying to sell a "version" of the 7,000 year old Earth. Numerous statements are made about "no examples of new beneficial genes", "evolutionists date the geology", "all complex creatures existed at the same time", "the fossil record is wrong and misinterpreted", ad infinitum and ad nauseum. It is not an intellectual discussion of religion or evolution. I don't have a lot of patience with someone to constantly twists facts. After 20 pages you still fail to realise I am asking for proof of extra beneficial (non-viral) coding genes. All the examples presented haven't actually shown this, I read those links. And you keep misrepresenting my position, I did say the fossil record is misinterpreted, but I never said the fossil record is "wrong" as per your misrepresentation of my position. I believe evolutionists misinterpret the facts put forward by geologists, I don't believe geologists are wrong.. So too did you misrepresent my position regarding Billyclub, putting words in my mouth that I never even came close to even implying. So frankly the very dishonesty you are accusing me of has only been displayed by you in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Genome sizes DO vary in closely related sub populations. Abstract
Genome size varies considerably among organisms due to differences in the amplification, deletion, and divergence of various kinds of repetitive sequences, including the transposable elements, which constitute a large fraction of the genome. However, while the changes in genome size observed at a wide taxonomic level have been thoroughly investigated, we still know little about the process involved in closely related species. We estimated genome sizes and the reverse transcriptase–related sequence (RTRS) content in the nine species of the Drosophila melanogaster species subgroup. We showed that the species differ with regard to their genome size and that the RTRS content is correlated with genome size for all species except Drosophila orena. The genome of D. orena, which is 1.6-fold as big as that of D. melanogaster, has in fact not undergone any major increase in its RTRS content. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/1/162.full Howzityoume, I want to apologize, I reread through your originally posts, and I did not find goal posts shifting, so please excuse my last post. I see we have had some trouble in understanding some of the term usages, and I see that your skepticism is valid if even grounded in irrationality (ie, that creation makes sense where evolution does not) I think the last linked article if read closely will show how we are researching and attempting to understand how genome size correlates to the overall picture of evolution. Between this article and the previous one you should see that the undertaking is a serious one. What I want you to further consider is that no working explanations can be had in comparing magic (creation) to natural processes. So while you may remain skeptical that we fully understand how speciation and divergence occur at the genetic level (and rightly so), I think it only honest to admit no better theory has ever been presented. It is at this level that proper skeptical acceptance should exist. I do not BELIEVE in evolution, I accept it as the best explanation of the evidence with no contradictions to date. Evolution answers questions, such as why we share an ERV with some primates, and not others. So many facets of evolution answer questions that no other theory has been able to answer. That in and of itself is what supports evolution and makes any other theory seem hollow for lack of the same ability to make predictions. I did find many in accuracies in your original posts, but they are the same ones you continue to make, and that is the source of my own personal irritation. Natural selection alone cannot explain the observed organisms that contain 3 billion DNA largely functional base pairs. To increase the length of the DNA requires mutation. Mutation is nearly always neutral or damaging. In the rare cases when mutation has been favourable, it has not involved any significant increases to the length of the DNA. Thus the whole theory of evolution shouldn't even be given the label of "theory" its merely a hypothosesis based on projecting a few minor observed mutations and absolutely ASSUMING that these mutations occurred in major favorable mutational jumps in DNA length when nothing like that has ever been observed. This is just not true. I hope that some of the research I have linked will be convincing to you in that regard. We have empirical support for evolution, including changes in the size of the genome. Evolutionists also believe in miraculous processes.
This is also just amazingly wrong. Comparing the set of evidence for evolution against the set of evidence for a creator is not even in the same realm of realism. The only way one comes to this conclusion is when the creator is the default, and all other evidence must be compared with a certain outcome pre-established. Science and proper skepticism do not work this way.
1) The spontaeous creation of matter from nothing. 2) The spontaneous creation of DNA, the smallest observed is over 500000 base pairs long, how did it get there? 3) Favourable increases in the DNA length from less than 1 million base pairs to organisms of over 150 billion base pairs. It takes an extreme faith to believe in all these processes that are never observed in reality. As unbelieveable as the thought of an eternal loving all-powerful being is, the alternatives are also unbelieveable. If you take a perfectly scientific approach, I believe the balance of evidence points to a creator, that is how little actual evidence there is for beneficial DNA lengthening on which the whole concept of evolving is based. I studied as a physicist in college, and I do not believe matter came from nowhere. However where matter came from is unimportant to an evolutionary biologist, so this is a straw man. DNA's origin is a tricky thing to determine, RNA on the other hand can be shown to form via nothing more than convection currents and naturally occurring organic compounds. This has been done in the lab many times. I posted a link to a video earlier in the thread that presented one of the more widely accepted hypothesis for abiogenesis. However, this again is a straw man. Evolutionary biologists do not need to know the source of the coding system to detail how it changes. Which is what evolution is all about. On your third point I have submitted two very good links that show genone size does increase, we can map the mechanism by which this occurs, and can use statistical modeling to show how over time you can go from a small genome to a very large one, and how natural selection can pair them down, or allow them to grow dependent on the environment. According to evolution, DNA has lengthened in some organisms.
Some organisms have stayed the same length and yet evolved within their gene pool without the requirement for mutation. I do not dispute this type of evolving. This could explain the variety of dogs, I'm sure that you can get a lot of varieties and even new species from evolving within a species' gene pool. The alternative that an organism of about 32000 useful functional genes containing about 3 billion base pairs spontaneously appeared is statistically impossible and also a completely different theory to evolution which assumes an evolving and increasing complexity over time. To explain some modern organisms, evolution requires significant beneficial increases to the genome length which have never been observed in nature. It is thus merely an interesting idea, no more scientific than that. Again please see the cited links, or even do as I did and google search genome size, lots of material exists on this topic as it is one of the leading aspects of evolutionary research at the moment. When you have a child, that child has the same DNA size and structure as yourself. The genes are a combination of both parents, yet the DNA has the same human genetic structure. No matter what you eat, you can have no effect or change on the DNA of your child.
1) It is only mutations , mainly through insertions or duplications of sections of DNA, that increase the size of the DNA. 2) These mutations have to be beneficial to become naturally selected and dominant in a population 3) This has not yet been observed yet, its just an idea. If the whole population starts eating fatty foods, there will be signs after a few generations of a change to the "allele frequency" of the population. ie the gene combinations within the human population that involve a metabolism that handles the fatty foods better will start to show in an increased proportion of the population through natural selection, but this involves a few generations. 1, 2 are correct, 3 is not please see the fruit fly studies. If only we could study every human currently alive and sequences every single person's genome independently at birth . . . man we would have an awesome array of data then. Sadly, we cannot, and have not been able to do this, and thus the data is lacking . . . not the theory. Evolutionary theory has come a long way in a short time, but the reality is that the tools needed to really delve into the genetic components of evolution are in there infancy. If we look at it from the scale of evolution itself, the time period of our growth of understanding is not even a blip on the radar. Evolution occurs on geological time scales, and we have not even been looking for the tiniest of fractions along that scale from the genetic perspective. Genetics is the most complex aspect, and the one that has the least data. In light of that, it is quite amazing how much we have learned in so short a time. Thanks for the apology. I haven't always used the phrase "extra beneficial non-viral coding genes" throughout this thread, but you will notice that this is always consistently what I have been looking for as proof of evolution as an explanation for the appearance of modern life-forms. I do feel I explained this pretty clearly from the start, and so I have been wondering why you guys keep giving me examples of extra beneficial NON-CODING genes to prove your position. This does not explain modern life-forms that require extra coding genes to exist. I have also been wondering why you guys have been giving me examples of changed beneficial coding genes. Anyway, I will put it down to simple misunderstandings of my terminology, understandable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Mon 06/11/12 12:33 AM
|
|
Because bbc did not highlight the relevant section and yet claims the article has some point, seems to indicate he is battling to find the relevance himself. I don't believe it indicates that at all. The pattern of BBC's posts suggest to me that he has lost interest in spending the time discussing the details of your argument. There are many possible reasons for this. I actually have no problem with the creation of new species (macro-evolution) through evolutionary processes. I just feel this cannot explain the increased complexity found in organs and limbs, brains etc, whereby bacteria can become humans.
Oh! I admit I have not read every single one of your posts with care, and if you said this already I missed it. Again, I feel that defining evolution seems essential. To me, evolution is not "a complete, definitive explanation for how and why all of life came to be on this planet". And while it is far more than 'the creation of new species', to me this is a significant sticking point for creationists. Based on your quote above, and my concept of evolution, I would say, emphatically, that you believe in the theory of evolution. If you believe that new species can come into existence purely as a result of evolutionary processes, then you've got what matters. It contributes to misunderstanding when we say we 'agree with the theory of evolution' or 'doubt the theory of evolution' without being very specific about which portions we are speaking of. It looks to me like you are: 'someone who believes in known evolutionary processes who doesn't think that what is know about evolution is adequate to fully explain the origin of complex life on this planet'. Which is, also, my position. I just don't default to creationism in the face of the unknowns. I understand your paraphrasing of my position and it is technically correct. Yet my consensus about an organism evolving into an ecological niche yet retaining the same genetic structure or having reduced complexity is completely different to evolutionist claims of evolution being the source of all complex life-forms. So you could say that I'm completely opposed to the main assumption of evolution, the evolving of complex life-forms. Observed evolution is micro-evolution and devolving into less complex life-forms (reduced gene functionality) to suit environmental ecological conditions. This flies in the face of the core claim of evolution of being the source for all complex life-forms. All the examples listed of observed evolution in this thread do not support evolution's core assumption. The word 'evolution' is being used in very different ways through this dialog. When you use the verb 'evolve', it seems you treat the word as if its meaning assumes a certain kind of history or progression, whereas the word can correctly be used without that assumption. So, in response to the bolded section, I would say that you do believe in the evolution of complex life forms, you just don't believe in the evolution of complex life forms from non-complex life forms. The phrase "from simpler life forms" is not implied by the word 'evolve', but for you it seems to be so implied. The heart of evolution, the process, from my POV, is speciation. Evolution is a process, not a history. There may be cases where its not wrong, exactly, to use the word evolution to imply a particular, assumed history, but this distinction is key and the two uses should not be confused. Back to how you use the term - making the distinction using the terms 'micro-evolution' vs 'macro-evolution' is not sufficient to make your meaning clear to me. I've met many creationists who say "I believe in micro, but not macro" who explicitly disbelieve in any speciation of any kind. To them, the exclusion of speciation is implicit in their use of the word 'micro', and it is the main point or purpose behind their use of 'micro'. They only acknowledge a change of qualities within a species over time. You are not like them - you acknowledge speciation - so your use of micro vs macro seems to be different to me. You seem (?) to view 'evolution' as, first and foremost, 'a supposed explanation for how all of life came to be on this planet'. I'm constantly frustrated by people (from all camps! not just creationists) who view evolution through this lens. There is a process that is occurring, which is very well evidenced. It is real. It is happening. Most creationists are in complete denial of this reality. This process is called 'evolution', and your recent comments make clear that you fully acknowledge that this process is, in fact, occurring. It seems to me that you just don't see evidence supporting the notion that this process is the explanation for how complex life came to be, which to me is not intrinsic to the term evolution. Also, it seems to me that you see a lack of evidence for the known processes to even allow for the development of complex species from simple species. My response is: Okay. So don't believe that notion. We have a lot to learn, as a species, about these two separate but entangled topics: the actual process of evolution, and the actual history of the development of life on this planet. ------ Just reread your post and want to respond; I'm sure I'm belaboring the point, but its really important to me: is completely different to evolutionist claims of evolution being the source of all complex life-forms.
This is true. Most people who, like you, believe in the process of evolution also (unlike you) believe that this process is the means by which we came to have so many complex life forms. So they make this additional, but separate, assertion. I'm certain that they don't have the full story; and I suspect that it doesn't really matter. I predict that the gaps in knowledge are going to be filled with surprising discoveries such as in the mechanisms influencing gene movement and activation, rather than aliens or God. I could be wrong. I don't know how to respond to this except to say that you do seem to have a very accurate take on my position. I do see evolution as the explanation for the appearance of modern life-forms. This is how the word is used, and I understand your frustration with the narrow meaning, however this is really what the creation/evolution debate is about. Where did advanced life-forms come from, were they always there, or evolved from bacteria. (technically our common ancestor between humans/bacteria). Semantically I've been finding it difficult to find the correct words. Who would have thought that the word "adding" a gene could be misunderstood, but it was misunderstood and I had to change it to "extra" genes. So I admit that semantically I have not used the best words to describe my position. I suspect that both creationists and evolutionists are going to be shocked by the discoveries that are going to be revealed through genome sequencing, I'm especially interested in how the chromosomal patterns of Madagascan civets and lemurs relate and also Australian marsupials. There's a lot to be discovered and as you say they don't have the full story. In the meantime it's a bit irritating when you read a wikipedia article or watch National Geographic and they say this animal is a cousin to that animal and they have the common ancestor of xxxx fossil. All these assertions are guesswork based on the assumption of evolution and applying that assumption to closely matching DNA patterns, then this is adopted by the mainstream media and educational authorities as fact. Anyway I'm just rambling, not making any particular point here, from an empirical view we seem to be in agreement, fortunately I have strong religious beliefs that give me an advantage when looking at these facts. hahahaha stirring! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
However, on one point you are absolutely correct. What this whole article has to do with extra beneficial (non-viral) coding genes is beyond you.
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
