Community > Science & Philosophy

Previous 1 2 … 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 … 49 50 Next

Topic: Creation vs. Evolution.
Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 05/07/12 04:11 PM
DNA morphs. I believe that.

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Mon 05/07/12 04:55 PM
With all due respect, you do not understand the comments or the references. The telomeres are positive proof of the condition that you have predetermined cannot be proven, therefore your position states that your position is confirmed when in actuality, you simply don't understand the proof. You said that telomeres could have a creator purpose which is just silly. Your understanding of polymorphism in the context of chromosomal polymorphism is completely opposite of reality. I respect your beliefs even if you want to force false information into your version of "proof". Your lack of understanding of these processes does not translate into my lack of understanding of these processes. You are using intellectual dishonesty to try to make a point and all you are really doing is showing that you do not understand the topic sufficiently to debate on a scientific level. If you go back and carefully reread your statements in this thread, you change your facts to match your theory. You change your understanding of facts presented to you to match your theory. When all else fails, you state that I am not making a point that you don't understand because it doesn't fit your theory. If you are just learning about telomeres, you are a newbie to the topic by any standard. As my father used to say, "No one ever learned anything with their mouth open." Try rereading my posts again with an open mind. You might learn something. I don't have any axes to grind on this topic. You obviously do. I used the Wiki post because it is simple and well written and, to my knowledge, nothing in it is scientifically disputed. I suggest you go back and reread the reason great apes have one more chromosome than we do. It's not that complicated. Neither is the reason our DNA has snippets of Neanderthal. I did carefully read all your posts and wiki quotes and frankly you do not understand your own quotes. Telomeres generally have a function as you mentioned. Where telomeres appear in a unique position where they do not function, this appears to be a mutation and not beneficial. I fail to see how either the functional telomeres or the non-functional telomeres in the human genome would provide any advantage to the evolution position. A system that works well is not proof of evolution, neither is a mutation that does not function any proof of evolution. Only a DNA lengthening mutation which is beneficial would help your cause.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 05/07/12 05:57 PM
With all due respect, you do not understand the comments or the references. The telomeres are positive proof of the condition that you have predetermined cannot be proven, therefore your position states that your position is confirmed when in actuality, you simply don't understand the proof. You said that telomeres could have a creator purpose which is just silly. Your understanding of polymorphism in the context of chromosomal polymorphism is completely opposite of reality. I respect your beliefs even if you want to force false information into your version of "proof". Your lack of understanding of these processes does not translate into my lack of understanding of these processes. You are using intellectual dishonesty to try to make a point and all you are really doing is showing that you do not understand the topic sufficiently to debate on a scientific level. If you go back and carefully reread your statements in this thread, you change your facts to match your theory. You change your understanding of facts presented to you to match your theory. When all else fails, you state that I am not making a point that you don't understand because it doesn't fit your theory. If you are just learning about telomeres, you are a newbie to the topic by any standard. As my father used to say, "No one ever learned anything with their mouth open." Try rereading my posts again with an open mind. You might learn something. I don't have any axes to grind on this topic. You obviously do. I used the Wiki post because it is simple and well written and, to my knowledge, nothing in it is scientifically disputed. I suggest you go back and reread the reason great apes have one more chromosome than we do. It's not that complicated. Neither is the reason our DNA has snippets of Neanderthal. I did carefully read all your posts and wiki quotes and frankly you do not understand your own quotes. Telomeres generally have a function as you mentioned. Where telomeres appear in a unique position where they do not function, this appears to be a mutation and not beneficial. I fail to see how either the functional telomeres or the non-functional telomeres in the human genome would provide any advantage to the evolution position. A system that works well is not proof of evolution, neither is a mutation that does not function any proof of evolution. Only a DNA lengthening mutation which is beneficial would help your cause.

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Mon 05/07/12 10:57 PM
In any case the problem with DNA lengthening is described by historic cases where interspecies breeding was successful in producing viable offspring. DNA can be lengthened or shortened by this process and explains why humans have one less DNA strand than the other Great Apes. From Wiki: Chromosomal polymorphism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search In genetics, chromosomal polymorphism is a condition where one species contains members with varying chromosome counts or shapes. Polymorphism is a general concept in biology where more than one version of a trait is present in a population. To be more specific, you refer to DNA lengthening through interspecies breeding, and then for some reason you quote a Wiki article that refers to chromosomal polymorphism that involves mutation within a species that has nothing to do with increases in genome size or interspecies breeding. The morphism that occurs involves inverting parts of the DNA or splitting of chromosones, and this can result in lessened ability to breed after the mutation. So you really do appear to have misunderstood the idea of chromosomal polymorphism and attaempted to apply this concept to inter-species breeding.

massagetrade Joined Thu 02/22/07 Posts: 8505	Tue 05/08/12 10:53 AM
This is not intended as a response to anything said in this thread so far. This is a tangent. I just saw it and found it interesting. There are people out there arguing against evolution whose arguments are as sensible as the one being mocked in this graphic.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Tue 05/08/12 10:58 AM
I just saw it and found it interesting. There are people out there arguing against evolution whose arguments are as sensible as the one being mocked in this graphic. And there are plenty of people who believe in evolution, but don't know anything about it. And then there are threads like this one, which presents creation vs evolution as opposites. There are billions of stupid, uneducated people in the world. It sometimes seems that one side of the debate is convinced that all of the stupid people are on the other side.

massagetrade Joined Thu 02/22/07 Posts: 8505	Tue 05/08/12 11:12 AM
I just saw it and found it interesting. There are people out there arguing against evolution whose arguments are as sensible as the one being mocked in this graphic. And there are plenty of people who believe in evolution, but don't know anything about it. .... There are billions of stupid, uneducated people in the world. It sometimes seems that one side of the debate is convinced that all of the stupid people are on the other side. All true. And then there are threads like this one, which presents creation vs evolution as opposites. I think that depends on the definitions. Howzit seems to be saying that he believes in some kind of creation, and some kind of evolution. Many believe in the 'creation' of the universe, and the 'evolution' of life.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Tue 05/08/12 11:22 AM
And then there are threads like this one, which presents creation vs evolution as opposites. I think that depends on the definitions. Howzit seems to be saying that he believes in some kind of creation, and some kind of evolution. Many believe in the 'creation' of the universe, and the 'evolution' of life. That's my point. Creationism = The origin of life Evolution = An explanation as to how the complexity of life increased. They aren't opposites. Even if you are the world's most fervent believer in evolution, that doesn't explain where life came from. Evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive.

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Tue 05/08/12 12:38 PM Edited by howzityoume on Tue 05/08/12 12:48 PM
I just saw it and found it interesting. There are people out there arguing against evolution whose arguments are as sensible as the one being mocked in this graphic. And there are plenty of people who believe in evolution, but don't know anything about it. And then there are threads like this one, which presents creation vs evolution as opposites. There are billions of stupid, uneducated people in the world. It sometimes seems that one side of the debate is convinced that all of the stupid people are on the other side. This is true, and unfortunately its YEC's as much as evolutionists that do not see the sense of the other's position. I believe its Creationism = origin of life in simple and complex forms Evolution = subsequent extreme and rapid natural selection to fulfil ecological niches within the existing gene pool of a species. Mutations can also assist in this process, but rarely. A good example is the "Duffy gene" whereby humans evolved through mutation and subsequent natural selection to better handle malaria areas.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Tue 05/08/12 05:14 PM
Your best bet is to learn the science, and learn the history of the science involved. It takes effort, so I know most wont want to, but at the end of it if you are honest with yourself and really truly interested in science it will be easy to see how staggering the evidence for evolution really is. I was a ID, creationist proponent once upon a time. Before I broke my back and in my crippled down time read many many science books, and then upon finishing rehab went back to college for physics. Anyone can do it, it just takes effort and an honest desire to learn. I have learned that there is really a very few ways to gain true knowledge, but many ways to deceive yourself. That is where skepticism, and critical thinking come into play to develop the ability to easily break down science and know BS when you see it. Religion really has nothing to do with it.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Tue 05/08/12 07:04 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Tue 05/08/12 07:09 PM
I'm sure there is staggering evidence for evolution. I doubt the evidence even scratches the surface of what is actually going on. Are all the important questions answered? I doubt it. I have a feeling if I spent years studying today's evidence for evolution I would be very disappointed and find more questions than answers. Right off the bat I get the feeling that in the over all scheme of things, they don't really have the answers to the most important questions. Have sharks evolved much? Religion has nothing to do with it.

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Tue 05/08/12 10:55 PM Edited by howzityoume on Tue 05/08/12 11:33 PM
Your best bet is to learn the science, and learn the history of the science involved. It takes effort, so I know most wont want to, but at the end of it if you are honest with yourself and really truly interested in science it will be easy to see how staggering the evidence for evolution really is. LOL - then post some evidence on this public forum. Only one person tried to post evidence for the evolving of increased complexity, and basically made a hash of it. Where is there ANY sign that DNA can favourably lengthen? Do different species mate and create longer DNA and new species as claimed earlier in this thread? How does the DNA expand , and is this an unobserved theoretical projection, or does the hypothesis of the evolving of complex DNA have any evidence to back it up in order to be a viable theory? I do believe in evolution as an explanation of changes to a species to fill ecological niches and retaining the same chromosomal pattern, but inceased complexity?? No I need evidence for that. Maybe you are referring exclusively to the fossil record to obtain your evidence. I understand more about the fossil record than biological evolution and there is nothing in the fossil record that indicates evolution either. I was a ID, creationist proponent once upon a time. Before I broke my back and in my crippled down time read many many science books, and then upon finishing rehab went back to college for physics. Anyone can do it, it just takes effort and an honest desire to learn. I have learned that there is really a very few ways to gain true knowledge, but many ways to deceive yourself. That is where skepticism, and critical thinking come into play to develop the ability to easily break down science and know BS when you see it. Religion really has nothing to do with it. sorry to hear about your back. Feel free to post your evidence , that is what a discussion forum is all about. I like to learn and will keep adjusting my theories according to the evidence, I believe that is the scientific approach.

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Wed 05/09/12 01:05 AM
I'm sure there is staggering evidence for evolution. I doubt the evidence even scratches the surface of what is actually going on. Are all the important questions answered? I doubt it. I have a feeling if I spent years studying today's evidence for evolution I would be very disappointed and find more questions than answers. Right off the bat I get the feeling that in the over all scheme of things, they don't really have the answers to the most important questions. Have sharks evolved much? Religion has nothing to do with it. Exactly Jeanniebean. Sharks, arthopods, coelecanths etc etc. Obviously these living fossils are not discovered all at once, but as time goes on, more and more modern forms are found already intact in the fossil record. And you are perfectly correct, the more you investigate evolution, the less evidence there is.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Wed 05/09/12 07:21 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Wed 05/09/12 07:22 AM
Feel free to post your evidence , that is what a discussion forum is all about. Ive done this before, on this very forum we have other threads that are even larger than this one that we battled it out with hard headed, dead set in there beliefs creationists before. I am not interested in that battle. The web has an amazing set of resources for learning about evolution. Ill be a nice guy and post a few vids, and a few websites you can learn about it. The hard work needs to be done by you, no one is going to convince you, you will just have to spend many hours being honest while reading and learning the science. Watch this playlist, it does a better job of explaining the many straw mans against evolution (some of which you are presenting btw), and presenting the overwhelming evidence for evolution than anyone not specialized in the field could do anyways. I dont know about you, but I work in Radiology, not Biology, this gent in the vids is a scientific researcher with a college degree specializing in evolutionary biology. In fact I believe now he is an award winning PHD. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF626DD5B2C1F0A87&feature=plcp Here is Berkeley's website for the evidence for evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 If you are serious about it, you WILL come to understand how flawed your current position is, if not, oh well.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 05/09/12 09:51 AM Edited by Jeanniebean on Wed 05/09/12 09:53 AM
Bushidobillyclub The first link goes to a website with the title: "Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism" So right off I see a closed agenda. But okay I clicked on a video that "explains" evolution. RE: How Evolution REALLY Works, Part I It explains that evolution does not explain where life came from, but about how one form of life evolves into another. (I'm going to assume they mean one species changes into another.) Now in this evolution theory, they make the claim that 25% get eaten by predators, 25% die of "random reasons" (they are "unlucky") and that mating is completely random. These are assumptions that I don't agree with and I doubt that scientists can support these assumption with any hard evidence. And yet they believe in LUCK (Bad luck as it were) for the poor creatures that died because of it. Now if scientists can explain what good luck and bad luck really is, and what causes it, I would be interested. In a perfect world of nothing but cause and effect, nothing is "random." The random factor, in my opinion, has to do with choices and decisions. Even animals make them. An animal making a choice, has to do with intelligence and will and the workings of the mind. And sorry, I don't believe in luck, or blame anything on "good luck" or "bad luck." For every event, there is cause.

howzityoume Joined Mon 12/19/11 Posts: 149	Wed 05/09/12 10:41 AM Edited by howzityoume on Wed 05/09/12 10:56 AM
Feel free to post your evidence , that is what a discussion forum is all about. Ive done this before, on this very forum we have other threads that are even larger than this one that we battled it out with hard headed, dead set in there beliefs creationists before. I am not interested in that battle. The web has an amazing set of resources for learning about evolution. Ill be a nice guy and post a few vids, and a few websites you can learn about it. The hard work needs to be done by you, no one is going to convince you, you will just have to spend many hours being honest while reading and learning the science. Watch this playlist, it does a better job of explaining the many straw mans against evolution (some of which you are presenting btw), and presenting the overwhelming evidence for evolution than anyone not specialized in the field could do anyways. I dont know about you, but I work in Radiology, not Biology, this gent in the vids is a scientific researcher with a college degree specializing in evolutionary biology. In fact I believe now he is an award winning PHD. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF626DD5B2C1F0A87&feature=plcp Here is Berkeley's website for the evidence for evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 If you are serious about it, you WILL come to understand how flawed your current position is, if not, oh well. All I'm asking for is proof that there can be beneficial increases to the genome. That's all. With your knowledge, surely you can solve this in one short sentence, and tell me when this sort of mutation or increase has been observed, in a laboratory or otherwise. Without proof, evolution is merely an interesting idea, not even a theory. So far others have showed me evidence for mutations which I have always believed in. I am the only one who has posted evidence for beneficicial mutations, which I do believe in. But the only increases in genome size relate to DNA junk, and are not useful and naturally selected. So no proof has been shown so far for beneficial increases to the genome, if you can point to any such posts in this thread, then I will gladly accept your label of "hardheaded". (I thought we were not allowed insults on this site :)) And I will look through those links you have given me, and hope that I find this evidence, because without it your confidence in evolution appears a little silly, because evolutionists are currently claiming a progression from single cell organisms to humans, which requires beneficial increases to the genome. Why call yourselves scientific if you have no evidence for your confident claims?

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 05/09/12 10:49 AM
Yep, nobody really wants to "discuss" anything specific. They just want to tell you to go get a vast education and they will gladly post a bunch of links to vast amounts of information as their reply.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Wed 05/09/12 10:54 AM
If fossils are proof of macro evolution, then Sasquatch footprint casts are proof of Bigfoot.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Wed 05/09/12 11:05 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Wed 05/09/12 11:19 AM
The first link goes to a website with the title: "Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism" So right off I see a closed agenda. Doesn't matter, refute the evidence, dont try to poison the well. Too much evidence for me to explain here, in fact anyone who thinks it simple is clearly ignoring reality. Back when I was unemployed I would have enjoyed this conversation, and schooled you guys properly, not that it would have made a difference. If fossils are proof of macro evolution, then Sasquatch footprint casts are proof of Bigfoot. One of these is not like the other . . . All I'm asking for is proof that there can be beneficial increases to the genome. That's all. NO, what you are doing is trying to frame the argument so that evolution cannot be true, by making evolution something its not. That is called a straw man. If you drop the BS, and just take the time to really honestly go through those videos, take notes even, take umbrage with the evidence if you want. We can discuss that, I am not discussing your straw man however. Jot down the time in the vid, and present why its wrong. The way real science works is it is up to the critic to go do the heavy lifting on a well established theory to try to refute it, not the other way around. YOU get to work with the real evidence, and show me where you think its wrong. I am the only one who has posted evidence for beneficicial mutations, which I do believe in. But the only increases in genome size relate to DNA junk, and are not useful and naturally selected. This is called an assertion, that does not make it a fact. Also the size of the genome is not directly related to change. This is true of everything. I can represent change with colored bits of plastic, where I remove all of one color and replace the same numbers with a different color, change occurred without size of the set changing. (this is why your argument is a straw man) The definition of evolution is: A change in allele frequencies of a population over time. How evolution works is the theory. That evolution occurs is irrfutable, how it occurs is well documented, we have seen it in the lab even. This convo is a waste of time if you guys wont even read the University web page.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Wed 05/09/12 11:13 AM Edited by Jeanniebean on Wed 05/09/12 11:15 AM
Bushi: I would like to discuss one of the videos. The one that requires LUCK (in this case, bad luck) for its hypothesis. 25% die for random reasons. It states "they are unlucky." Now either science has a good handle on what is random or what causes randomness, (which I don't think they do) OR - they believe in luck. (Do they?) (I just don't think that sounds like real science.) Do you believe in good and bad luck? I would like to talk about the scientific understanding of luck and randomness. It is, after all, an extremely important ingredient to that video that explains evolution.