Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Brazil
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1185
QuoteReplyTopic: Evolution???? Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 15:50
Originally posted by gcl2003
That just gets you even more tangled. To repeat: You said: 'Evolution was proposed because it happens. So you agree it happens. If it happens it must be a fact. Yet you deny it is a fact, so you must be denying it happens.
I'm not actually trying to take sides; I'm trying to emulate both sides at the same time. Basically, I don't want to sound like a religious fanatic, because I actually have studied Biology.
I know creationists don't accept evolution except where they are absolutely forced to. But to retreat into saying 'ah but that's not MACRO-evolution, that's only MICRO-evolution' when there's no distinguishable difference between the two is just unconvincing sophistry.
There IS a difference, when you start reading the two. That is why I am telling you to actually study biology and the mechanics behind the Chromosomal basis of inheritance, primitive species, genetics, and all irrefutable factors before you start rambiling tongue twisting words.
Basically, a philosopher never belongs to a biology-topic, unless he or she knows what he/she is talking about. You are arguing something that you have no clue whatsoever, except that of what outer sources of information tells you to believe in.
And you know, try to not procrastinate from now on. Please keep your sentences concise and to the point, because your tongue twisting befuddles me.
Originally posted by Mila
We know evolution takes place, it is as proven as any scientific fact can be. The theory of evolution is not an attempt to suggest evolution happens, it is an attempt to suggest how and why it happens.
Not really- you couldn't have passed Biology without several questions that cannot be explained empirically by science. Read the reply to the quote below.
Although you lack the scientific skills to answer this question, here goes:
Gorillas have 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46. According to the complete theory of evolution, Humans and Gorillas have originated from a common ancestor, some several thousand years ago. But, what explains the chromosomal differences?
Originally posted by maju
I have no problem with life surging spontaneously where the conditions are favorable (water, energy, carbon), provided enogh time. In labs they have achieved to synthetize the bricks of life very easily, so getting them together in a simple living criature is just a matter of time. I'm sure we will find life (primitive life, like bacteria) in Mars and other planets as we continue wit our space exploration. That we haven't been able yet to reproduce in artificial conditions what happened in a whole planet and in huge ammounts of time doesn't mean that it didn't happen. In fact, it happened and we are the evidence.
I have no problem with life surging under god where the conditions are favorable (light, earth, let there be), provided seven days. According to Bible they have achieved to walk on water and turn water into wine, so getting God to create us is just a matter of time. I'm sure we will find life (primitive life, like bacteria) in Mars and other planets as we continue wit our space exploration[even when the frozen water in mars actually turned out to be frozen CO2]. That we haven't been able yet to explain the authencity of Bible or the actual existence of God and Jesus and their miracles doesn't mean that it didn't happen. In fact, it happened and we are the evidence.
I have no problem with life surging
spontaneously where the conditions are favorable (water, energy,
carbon), provided enogh time. In labs they have achieved to synthetize
the bricks of life very easily, so getting them together in a simple
living criature is just a matter of time. I'm sure we will find life
(primitive life, like bacteria) in Mars and other planets as we
continue wit our space exploration. That we haven't been able yet to
reproduce in artificial conditions what happened in a whole planet and
in huge ammounts of time doesn't mean that it didn't happen. In fact,
it happened and we are the evidence.
I have no problem with life surging under god where
the conditions are favorable (light, earth, let there be), provided
seven days.
What capricious and unscientific conditions. You're truly a demon, man.
Have you thought that the sequence of divine creation as written
in the book of Genesis doesn't fit with the fossil record. There
are some serious incosistences, even if you consider the days to be a metaphore of undefined (but very large) spans of time.
According to Bible they have achieved to walk on water
and turn water into wine, so getting God to create us is just a matter
of time. I'm sure we will find life (primitive life, like bacteria) in
Mars and other planets as we continue wit our space exploration[even
when the frozen water in mars actually turned out to be frozen CO2].
Actually? I'm following everything
on Mars exploration and I haven't read that. Anyhow, there is water out
there, we know via spectrometric analysis. So many suns and planets and
no other with life, even a strange and microscopical kind of life?
Impossible.
You haven't yest understood the implications of the end of the
geocentric model, have you? You haven't assimilated that there are
zillions of suns and tens of zillions of planets and that means that
even if the likehood for life existence is minimal, there must be other
places where life and even inteligent beings such as ourselves (or
possibly even smarter) do live.
Else, what? Has god created so many planets and even the fossil
record just to decieve us. That's a truly tricky God. With such a good
practical joke, everybody has to fall. But this doesn't fit with the
JCM concept of God being Truth and not deceit. So I take scientific
facts as God's truth. Much more than any sheet of paper written in some
obscure century by some badly known scribe with his own agenda.
That we haven't been able yet to explain the authencity
of Bible or the actual existence of God and Jesus and their
miracles doesn't mean that it didn't happen. In fact, it happened and we are the evidence.
Do you need tales of miracles and book-idols to explain our
existence? I don't. I find enough miracle and marvel in the power of
Nature. No need of anything else. No need of fairy tales, thanks.
That just gets you even more tangled. To repeat: You said: 'Evolution was proposed because it happens. So you agree it happens. If it happens it must be a fact. Yet you deny it is a fact, so you must be denying it happens.
I'm not actually trying to take sides; I'm trying to emulate both sides at the same time. Basically, I don't want to sound like a religious fanatic, because I actually have studied Biology.
I know creationists don't accept evolution except where they are absolutely forced to. But to retreat into saying 'ah but that's not MACRO-evolution, that's only MICRO-evolution' when there's no distinguishable difference between the two is just unconvincing sophistry.
There IS a difference, when you start reading the two. That is why I am telling you to actually study biology and the mechanics behind the Chromosomal basis of inheritance, primitive species, genetics, and all irrefutable factors before you start rambiling tongue twisting words.
Basically, a philosopher never belongs to a biology-topic, unless he or she knows what he/she is talking about. You are arguing something that you have no clue whatsoever, except that of what outer sources of information tells you to believe in. [/QUOTE ]
No I'm not.
And you know, try to not procrastinate from now on. Please keep your sentences concise and to the point, because your tongue twisting befuddles me.
Do you have any idea what 'procrastinate' means? You don't appear to. And if being asked to think straight befuddles you then...well, people can draw their own conclusions.
Originally posted by Mila
We know evolution takes place, it is as proven as any scientific fact can be. The theory of evolution is not an attempt to suggest evolution happens, it is an attempt to suggest how and why it happens.
Not really- you couldn't have passed Biology without several questions that cannot be explained empirically by science. Read the reply to the quote below.
Although you lack the scientific skills to answer this question, here goes:
Gorillas have 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46. According to the complete theory of evolution, Humans and Gorillas have originated from a common ancestor, some several thousand years ago. But, what explains the chromosomal differences?
Why do you think I didn't know that?
But difference in chromosome count doesn't mean difference in species. The other apes all have the same number of chromosomes as gorillas, but they are different species.
Moreover we see differences in chromosome distribution occurring in the same species - frequently in human cell division. Mutations involving extra or fewer chromosomes can occur, just as mutations to genes can. There's no reason that much the same mechanisms (carcinogens for instance) can't produce both. Such mutations are usually harmful, but there's no rule says they can't once in a while be beneficial: the same after all is true of gene mutations.
I will grant there is a descriptive and therefore qualitative difference between mutations involving the number of chromosomes, and those directly affecting the genes. But both can easily be incorporated into the same theory of evolution.
I have no problem with life surging spontaneously where the conditions are favorable (water, energy, carbon), provided enogh time. In labs they have achieved to synthetize the bricks of life very easily, so getting them together in a simple living criature is just a matter of time. I'm sure we will find life (primitive life, like bacteria) in Mars and other planets as we continue wit our space exploration. That we haven't been able yet to reproduce in artificial conditions what happened in a whole planet and in huge ammounts of time doesn't mean that it didn't happen. In fact, it happened and we are the evidence.
I have no problem with life surging under god where the conditions are favorable (light, earth, let there be), provided seven days.
What capricious and unscientific conditions. You're truly a demon, man.
Have you thought that the sequence of divine creation as written in the book of Genesis doesn't fit with the fossil record. There are some serious incosistences, even if you consider the days to be a metaphore of undefined (but very large) spans of time.
Quote:
According to Bible they have achieved to walk on water and turn water into wine, so getting God to create us is just a matter of time. I'm sure we will find life (primitive life, like bacteria) in Mars and other planets as we continue wit our space exploration[even when the frozen water in mars actually turned out to be frozen CO2].
Actually? I'm following everything on Mars exploration and I haven't read that. Anyhow, there is water out there, we know via spectrometric analysis. So many suns and planets and no other with life, even a strange and microscopical kind of life? Impossible.
You haven't yest understood the implications of the end of the geocentric model, have you? You haven't assimilated that there are zillions of suns and tens of zillions of planets and that means that even if the likehood for life existence is minimal, there must be other places where life and even inteligent beings such as ourselves (or possibly even smarter) do live.
Else, what? Has god created so many planets and even the fossil record just to decieve us. That's a truly tricky God. With such a good practical joke, everybody has to fall. But this doesn't fit with the JCM concept of God being Truth and not deceit. So I take scientific facts as God's truth. Much more than any sheet of paper written in some obscure century by some badly known scribe with his own agenda.
Quote:
That we haven't been able yet to explain the authencity of Bible or the actual existence of God and Jesus and their miracles doesn't mean that it didn't happen. In fact, it happened and we are the evidence.
Do you need tales of miracles and book-idols to explain our existence? I don't. I find enough miracle and marvel in the power of Nature. No need of anything else. No need of fairy tales, thanks.
Maju, did you like my post? Well, here's something:
I wrote that paragraph based upon YOUR PARAGRAPH, and I MODIFIED JUST THE MAIN ARGUMENTS, not the LOGIC.
In other words, I used satire to prove you wrong. The more you think that my post is rediculous, the more fun you are making out of yourself. That's the problem with so called "evolutionists" today - they know nothing about biology, and think they are smart merely because they conform to what experts say without knowing the basics.
Now go and cry about your hypocrisy. You are just as ignorant as any religious fanatic, and I mean it.
If you were offended by the previous statement, I'm sorry about that. I couldn't phrase it any friendlier, because the statement speaks the meaning for itself.
EDIT: gcle2003 replied just as I posted my reply to maju
Originally posted by maju
No I'm not
You didn't answer anything.
Do you have any idea what 'procrastinate' means? You don't appear to. And if being asked to think straight befuddles you then...well, people can draw their own conclusions.
Procrastinating is when you have a 400 word history paper due tomorrow, and you write 100 words on facts and 300 words that help nothing but add up the word count.
My point is that if you disagree, just say that you disagree. State your evidence. Period. And if you find flaws in my argument, state it and explain why. Period. It's that simple.
By the way, by the "people can draw their own conclusions," you tried to sound just like Prince Talleyrand in the Congress of Vienna, and you failed miserably in doing so.
Why do you think I didn't know that?
But difference in chromosome count doesn't mean difference in species. The other apes all have the same number of chromosomes as gorillas, but they are different species.
I didn't really argue about the difference in chromosome count. I was asking how come if Gorillas and Humans originated from the same common ancestor, chromosome differences have occured.
And if it happened due to mutation, how was it transferred and how that was in turn transferred into the next generation enough to not have the gene disappear in generations but to stand out into speciation.
Moreover we see differences in chromosome distribution occurring in the same species - frequently in human cell division. Mutations involving extra or fewer chromosomes can occur, just as mutations to genes can. There's no reason that much the same mechanisms (carcinogens for instance) can't produce both. Such mutations are usually harmful, but there's no rule says they can't once in a while be beneficial: the same after all is true of gene mutations.
I will grant there is a descriptive and therefore qualitative difference between mutations involving the number of chromosomes, and those directly affecting the genes. But both can easily be incorporated into the same theory of evolution.
Do you even understand the nature of Chromosomes? Hundreds of thousands of genes in each DNA within each Chromosome? Actually, do you know why when donkeys and horses breed, the result mule is sterile? It is linked with Chromosome number differences- go research.
How can DNA accumulate over generations? How can it be transferred to gametes via Meiosis? How can those germ cells undergo mitosis with extra DNA and where will it belong? Is there any rational proof that explains it, if Evolution by means of Speciation does occur?
I don't think there is. Do you happen to know any valid sources that refutes my claim? So far, I've seen none.
Even God would be angry at your pseudo-logic, demon. Where is the
problem on a mutation or an accident in chromosome recombination being
transmitted to new generations when it happens that it is favorable
enough to allow its carrier(s) to survive till adulthood and procreate
normally? Where's the problem with that?
We know that mutations happen, that they are transmitted to new
generations, even if they are somehow negative (but not as negative as
to kill or inhabilitate the carrier). We have seen it many times, with
animals and with humans. Where's the problem with that?
And, yes, I noticed your sarcasm in some paragraphs but, as your logic
is not based in observed facts but in assumptions of speculative
nature, the conclusions can't have the same strength. Example:
My logic: The Sun is a nuclear fireball -> the Sun emits light and heat (among other types of radiation)
Your logic: The Sun is a snowball -> the Sun emits cold and is the
home of Santa Claus (therefore its also emits toys-for-us).
While the structure of the propositions and conclussions is simmilar, both your propositions and your conclussions are wrong.
Even God would be angry at your pseudo-logic, demon. Where is the
problem on a mutation or an accident in chromosome recombination being
transmitted to new generations when it happens that it is favorable
enough to allow its carrier(s) to survive till adulthood and procreate
normally? Where's the problem with that?
We know that mutations happen, that they are transmitted to new
generations, even if they are somehow negative (but not as negative as
to kill or inhabilitate the carrier). We have seen it many times, with
animals and with humans. Where's the problem with that?
And, yes, I noticed your sarcasm in some paragraphs but, as your logic
is not based in observed facts but in assumptions of speculative
nature, the conclusions can't have the same strength. Example:
My logic: The Sun is a nuclear fireball -> the Sun emits light and heat (among other types of radiation)
Your logic: The Sun is a snowball -> the Sun emits cold and is the
home of Santa Claus (therefore its also emits toys-for-us).
While the structure of the propositions and conclussions is simmilar, both your propositions and your conclussions are wrong.
There is no wrong and there is no right. The sun emits light and heat because thats what we human believe it does according to our brain's supposed adaptation to the universe and its "laws".
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
In our reality of 3+i dimensions the Sun does exist and emits radiation. Maybe in other superior realities
of 7 or 12 dimensions, this is near to meaningless. But as much as our
experience can tell, the Sun exists and has a range of properties and
behaviours that can be measured and studied.
This doesn't mean that I do undermine psychological and sociological
realities but to believe that the Sun or the car rushing by the alley
are just products of our mind is not just wrong, it is actually
dangerous. You could have an accident. Take care, seriously.
There was nothing to answer. That was partly my point.
Do you have any idea what 'procrastinate' means? You don't appear to. And if being asked to think straight befuddles you then...well, people can draw their own conclusions.
Procrastinating is when you have a 400 word history paper due tomorrow, and you write 100 words on facts and 300 words that help nothing but add up the word count.
Well that's not what it means to anyone else. Procrastinating is when you have a 400 word history paper due tomorrow, and you don't do anything about it till 6 a.m.
Definitions of procrastination on the Web:
the act of procrastinating; putting off or delaying or defering an action to a later time
Procrastination is the deferment or putting-off of an action or task, usually by focusing on some other distraction (compare temporisation). It is Latin for "foremorrowing," or making some such of tomorrow. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrastination
My point is that if you disagree, just say that you disagree. State your evidence. Period. And if you find flaws in my argument, state it and explain why. Period. It's that simple.
That's what I did.
By the way, by the "people can draw their own conclusions," you tried to sound just like Prince Talleyrand in the Congress of Vienna, and you failed miserably in doing so.
Why do you think I didn't know that?
But difference in chromosome count doesn't mean difference in species. The other apes all have the same number of chromosomes as gorillas, but they are different species.
I didn't really argue about the difference in chromosome count. I was asking how come if Gorillas and Humans originated from the same common ancestor, chromosome differences have occured.
Same way they sometimes happen in the formation of cancerous tissue.
I don't know how they occur - I just know they occur. Maybe if I did know I'd be able to cure some cancers.
And if it happened due to mutation, how was it transferred and how that was in turn transferred into the next generation enough to not have the gene disappear in generations but to stand out into speciation.
A number of ways. You're accepting here that it could be due to a change in a gene. It that's true then the inheritance mechanism would be the same as for any other genetic trait. However there is the extra possibility that if, say, a sperm cell was deficient in a chromosome, and the ovum it fertilized had the normal amount, then in the process of further cell division the 'surplus' chromosomes could just fail to be copied.
So if you start with a 23-chromosome sperm and a 24-chromosome ovum, subsequent cells after division would have 46 chromosomes, not 48.
Moreover in such a situation the variation would breed true immediately.
Moreover we see differences in chromosome distribution occurring in the same species - frequently in human cell division. Mutations involving extra or fewer chromosomes can occur, just as mutations to genes can. There's no reason that much the same mechanisms (carcinogens for instance) can't produce both. Such mutations are usually harmful, but there's no rule says they can't once in a while be beneficial: the same after all is true of gene mutations.
I will grant there is a descriptive and therefore qualitative difference between mutations involving the number of chromosomes, and those directly affecting the genes. But both can easily be incorporated into the same theory of evolution.
Do you even understand the nature of Chromosomes? Hundreds of thousands of genes in each DNA within each Chromosome?
What on earth do you mean by 'in each DNA'? I know what a chromosome is, I know what DNA is, I know how DNA/RNA recombination works.
But that you can possibly write 'thousands of genes in each DNA' indicates pretty strongly that you don't know what you're talking about.
Actually, do you know why when donkeys and horses breed, the result mule is sterile? It is linked with Chromosome number differences- go research.
How can DNA accumulate over generations? How can it be transferred to gametes via Meiosis? How can those germ cells undergo mitosis with extra DNA and where will it belong? Is there any rational proof that explains it, if Evolution by means of Speciation does occur?
I don't think there is. Do you happen to know any valid sources that refutes my claim? So far, I've seen none.
And you quite evidently never will.
What you don't understand here is what the objection to intelligent design or creationism is. The objection is that it cannot be proven untrue. so it is no good arguing in its defence that it cannot be proven untrue: that's like arguing that a murderer is not guilty of murder because he committed murder.
Intelligent design can be used to explain any observation and to account for any possible experimental result.
But the likelihood of a hypothesis being true only increases when it passes a test it could have failed. The likelihood of it being untrue increases when it fails a test.
So there cannot be any experimental evidence to support the likelihood of intelligent design being true. Intelligent design cannot be used to predict anything - because it can explain whatever happens.
It is therefore useless and there is no way of establishing that it has any claim to truth whatsoever.
And that has nothing to do with biology.
What specific, falsifiable, scientific theories of evolution are valid or invalid is a matter for biologists to decide.
It doesn't need a biologist to dismiss any non-falsifiable, non-scientific hypothesis about anything.
Even God would be angry at your pseudo-logic, demon. Where is the problem on a mutation or an accident in chromosome recombination being transmitted to new generations when it happens that it is favorable enough to allow its carrier(s) to survive till adulthood and procreate normally? Where's the problem with that?
We know that mutations happen, that they are transmitted to new generations, even if they are somehow negative (but not as negative as to kill or inhabilitate the carrier). We have seen it many times, with animals and with humans. Where's the problem with that?
And, yes, I noticed your sarcasm in some paragraphs but, as your logic is not based in observed facts but in assumptions of speculative nature, the conclusions can't have the same strength. Example:
My logic: The Sun is a nuclear fireball -> the Sun emits light and heat (among other types of radiation)
Your logic: The Sun is a snowball -> the Sun emits cold and is the home of Santa Claus (therefore its also emits toys-for-us).
While the structure of the propositions and conclussions is simmilar, both your propositions and your conclussions are wrong.
Your logic: Evolution happened because we exist
My ripoff logic: Creationism happened because we exist
Do you see it now? -.-;
Also, your " mutation or an accident in chromosome recombination being transmitted to new generations when it happens that it is favorable enough to allow its carrier(s) to survive till adulthood and procreate normally" fails to answer how Chromosome differences between two species with the same common ancestor arises.
Well that's not what it means to anyone else. Procrastinating is when you have a 400 word history paper due tomorrow, and you don't do anything about it till 6 a.m.
Definitions of procrastination on the Web:
the act of procrastinating; putting off or delaying or defering an action to a later time
Procrastination is the deferment or putting-off of an action or task, usually by focusing on some other distraction (compare temporisation). It is Latin for "foremorrowing," or making some such of tomorrow. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrastination
I used procrastination in the sense that you drag on. That's at least how my History teacher uses it.
Same way they sometimes happen in the formation of cancerous tissue.
I don't know how they occur - I just know they occur. Maybe if I did know I'd be able to cure some cancers.
So one can argue that even if he doesn't understand how God made everything, he knows that God did it?
A number of ways. You're accepting here that it could be due to a change in a gene. It that's true then the inheritance mechanism would be the same as for any other genetic trait. However there is the extra possibility that if, say, a sperm cell was deficient in a chromosome, and the ovum it fertilized had the normal amount, then in the process of further cell division the 'surplus' chromosomes could just fail to be copied.
So if you start with a 23-chromosome sperm and a 24-chromosome ovum, subsequent cells after division would have 46 chromosomes, not 48.
Moreover in such a situation the variation would breed true immediately.
Bear in mind that your subsequent division logic only applies for plants; in Animals you get hybrids like mule, who are sterile.
What on earth do you mean by 'in each DNA'? I know what a chromosome is, I know what DNA is, I know how DNA/RNA recombination works.
But that you can possibly write 'thousands of genes in each DNA' indicates pretty strongly that you don't know what you're talking about.
Chromosomes are made up of DNA, each DNA that contains thousands of genes, coiled up tightly on protein molecules called histones. You learn that from basic biology.
And you quite evidently never will.
What you don't understand here is what the objection to intelligent design or creationism is. The objection is that it cannot be proven untrue. so it is no good arguing in its defence that it cannot be proven untrue: that's like arguing that a murderer is not guilty of murder because he committed murder.
Intelligent design can be used to explain any observation and to account for any possible experimental result.
But the likelihood of a hypothesis being true only increases when it passes a test it could have failed. The likelihood of it being untrue increases when it fails a test.
So there cannot be any experimental evidence to support the likelihood of intelligent design being true. Intelligent design cannot be used to predict anything - because it can explain whatever happens.
It is therefore useless and there is no way of establishing that it has any claim to truth whatsoever.
And that has nothing to do with biology.
What specific, falsifiable, scientific theories of evolution are valid or invalid is a matter for biologists to decide.
It doesn't need a biologist to dismiss any non-falsifiable, non-scientific hypothesis about anything.
Excuse me, but I WASN'T really arguing FOR creationism in that reply; I was merely challanging the evolution theory.
In other words, I was talking about how Evolution theory cannot fully explain its mechanics by the proven information that we already know. I wasn't preaching God.
In our reality of 3+i dimensions the Sun does exist and emits radiation. Maybe in other superior realities
of 7 or 12 dimensions, this is near to meaningless. But as much as our
experience can tell, the Sun exists and has a range of properties and
behaviours that can be measured and studied.
This doesn't mean that I do undermine psychological and sociological
realities but to believe that the Sun or the car rushing by the alley
are just products of our mind is not just wrong, it is actually
dangerous. You could have an accident. Take care, seriously.
Some of the both, but Buddism has a nihilistic approach to life that
lets it approach life's question somewhat differently from the other
religions out there.
Well yeah the Sun exists because we feel its effects but its true
nature might be different if we had developed a different recepor and
transmittor organ.
Next time I might just pretend that a car is not there and just jump at
the car. This state of mind Im going to develop will transmute itslef
in our spiritual environment and (im not kidding about this ) I believe that the car will simply disappear to make way for me.
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
Even God would be angry at
your pseudo-logic, demon. Where is the problem on a mutation or an
accident in chromosome recombination being transmitted to new
generations when it happens that it is favorable enough to allow its
carrier(s) to survive till adulthood and procreate normally? Where's
the problem with that?
We know that mutations happen, that they
are transmitted to new generations, even if they are somehow negative
(but not as negative as to kill or inhabilitate the carrier). We have
seen it many times, with animals and with humans. Where's the problem
with that?
And, yes, I noticed your sarcasm in some paragraphs
but, as your logic is not based in observed facts but in assumptions of
speculative nature, the conclusions can't have the same strength.
Example:
My logic: The Sun is a nuclear fireball -> the Sun emits light and heat (among other types of radiation)
Your logic: The Sun is a snowball -> the Sun emits cold and
is the home of Santa Claus (therefore its also emits toys-for-us).
While the structure of the propositions and conclussions is
simmilar, both your propositions and your conclussions are wrong.
Your logic: Evolution happened because we exist
My ripoff logic: Creationism happened because we exist
Do you see it now? -.-;
You have just picked a sentence and deprived of all its context, explicit and implicit.
We exist now, we didn't exist in the Jurassic era, but other
criatures like reptiless and the first mammals existed, these didn't
exist in even more ancient periods but some criatures existed as well.
Putting all these steps together we get a quite clear and defined
"movie" or tree of evolution. We are the evidence because we didn't
exist but our ancestors did.
Yet, nowhere in the archaeological registry we can find any fossil
evidence of the existence of God or what is described as the creation
in the Genesis (nor even anything alike!). Therefore again, you seem to
fail to catch what is essential to my logic and the logic of science.
And that is only because, instead of understanding what I say and
looking for the truth or falsehood in it with an open mind, you are
looking for arguments and counter-arguments in order to defend your
pre-conceptions.
Also, your " mutation or an accident in chromosome
recombination being transmitted to new generations when it happens that
it is favorable enough to allow its carrier(s) to survive till
adulthood and procreate normally" fails to answer how Chromosome
differences between two species with the same common ancestor arises.
I'm not as much knowlegeable but while you posted that
this is a barrier for procreation, in many genders it is not. At least
in the vegetal knigdom we have many cases of hybrids that are
intermediate of species with different number of chromosomes and are
fertile.
I can't discuss this point more in depth but guess that this difference
is not any absolute barrier when the affected cromosome has broken soon
before and therefore keeps the same overall structure, that is when the
process of speciation in this regard is still in its infancy.
In our reality of 3+i dimensions the Sun does exist and emits radiation. Maybe in other superior realities
of 7 or 12 dimensions, this is near to meaningless. But as much as our
experience can tell, the Sun exists and has a range of properties and
behaviours that can be measured and studied.
This doesn't mean that I do undermine psychological and sociological
realities but to believe that the Sun or the car rushing by the alley
are just products of our mind is not just wrong, it is actually
dangerous. You could have an accident. Take care, seriously.
Some of the both, but Buddism has a nihilistic approach to life that
lets it approach life's question somewhat differently from the other
religions out there.
Well yeah the Sun exists because we feel its effects but its true
nature might be different if we had developed a different recepor and
transmittor organ.
Next time I might just pretend that a car is not there and just jump at
the car. This state of mind Im going to develop will transmute itslef
in our spiritual environment and (im not kidding about this ) I believe that the car will simply disappear to make way for me.
I fear that it will be you who will disapear to make room for the car
in a simple equation of masses and forces. Many people have been killed
by things he never got to see/feel, by things they never imagined they
were there.
The magician is a simple realist:
he/she does not ignore reality... just goes beyond it. It's diferent
from pretending that the car does not exist, you must make it disapear
actively... or take another approach.
Well that's not what it means to anyone else. Procrastinating is when you have a 400 word history paper due tomorrow, and you don't do anything about it till 6 a.m.
Definitions of procrastination on the Web:
the act of procrastinating; putting off or delaying or defering an action to a later time
Procrastination is the deferment or putting-off of an action or task, usually by focusing on some other distraction (compare temporisation). It is Latin for "foremorrowing," or making some such of tomorrow. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrastination
I used procrastination in the sense that you drag on. That's at least how my History teacher uses it.
Assuming that's true, then you should straighten him out, no?
Same way they sometimes happen in the formation of cancerous tissue.
I don't know how they occur - I just know they occur. Maybe if I did know I'd be able to cure some cancers.
So one can argue that even if he doesn't understand how God made everything, he knows that God did it?
Of course he can. Whether you understand or not is not the issue. Someone could argue that he knew why people fall in love - it's because Eros shoots arrows in them. Perfectly understandable. Perfectly logical. Impossible to disprove. Accounts for every case of someone falling in love.
And, of course, totally unscientific nionsense.
Understanding and explanation and logic aren't the point. Falsifiability is. If it can't be falsified, even in theory, then it's worthless.
A number of ways. You're accepting here that it could be due to a change in a gene. It that's true then the inheritance mechanism would be the same as for any other genetic trait. However there is the extra possibility that if, say, a sperm cell was deficient in a chromosome, and the ovum it fertilized had the normal amount, then in the process of further cell division the 'surplus' chromosomes could just fail to be copied.
So if you start with a 23-chromosome sperm and a 24-chromosome ovum, subsequent cells after division would have 46 chromosomes, not 48.
Moreover in such a situation the variation would breed true immediately.
Bear in mind that your subsequent division logic only applies for plants; in Animals you get hybrids like mule, who are sterile.
I'm pretty sure you can get sterile hybrids in plants. But hybrids have nothing to do with it. New species aren't hybrids. They emerge from inside a predecessor species, not from interbreeding.
What on earth do you mean by 'in each DNA'? I know what a chromosome is, I know what DNA is, I know how DNA/RNA recombination works.
But that you can possibly write 'thousands of genes in each DNA' indicates pretty strongly that you don't know what you're talking about.
Chromosomes are made up of DNA, each DNA that contains thousands of genes, coiled up tightly on protein molecules called histones. You learn that from basic biology.
No you don't. DNA is the name of a type of structure. There aren't many DNAs so that you can talk about one DNA or another. Your grammar is totally out of kilter, pretty well invariably a sign that your thinking is too.
What there are are many DNA sequences. A gene is a sequence of bases: a DNA sequence. A chromosome is a sequence of genes: therefore a sequence of DNA sequences: therefore in its turn a DNA sequence.
That's what you're taught in basic biology, though it doesn't appear to be what you learned.
And you quite evidently never will.
What you don't understand here is what the objection to intelligent design or creationism is. The objection is that it cannot be proven untrue. so it is no good arguing in its defence that it cannot be proven untrue: that's like arguing that a murderer is not guilty of murder because he committed murder.
Intelligent design can be used to explain any observation and to account for any possible experimental result.
But the likelihood of a hypothesis being true only increases when it passes a test it could have failed. The likelihood of it being untrue increases when it fails a test.
So there cannot be any experimental evidence to support the likelihood of intelligent design being true. Intelligent design cannot be used to predict anything - because it can explain whatever happens.
It is therefore useless and there is no way of establishing that it has any claim to truth whatsoever.
And that has nothing to do with biology.
What specific, falsifiable, scientific theories of evolution are valid or invalid is a matter for biologists to decide.
It doesn't need a biologist to dismiss any non-falsifiable, non-scientific hypothesis about anything.
Excuse me, but I WASN'T really arguing FOR creationism in that reply; I was merely challanging the evolution theory.
In other words, I was talking about how Evolution theory cannot fully explain its mechanics by the proven information that we already know. I wasn't preaching God.
We all know that current scientific theories of evolution (there are more than one you know) cannot explain it fully. We know also that current theories of cosmology cannot explain the universe fully. We know also that current theories of quantum mechanics cannot explain the subject fully.
We live in hopes that day by day we will understand all of them better. But the fact that so far we don't understand, and can't explain, everything is neither here nor there. In the meantime the only explanations that are any use to us are the ones that may be false. Explanations like intelligent design or creatonism are of no use to anybody.
If that's all that you were saying, you could have said it more simply, and it wasn't worth the effort, anyway.
We exist now, we didn't exist in the Jurassic era, but other criatures like reptiless and the first mammals existed, these didn't exist in even more ancient periods but some criatures existed as well. Putting all these steps together we get a quite clear and defined "movie" or tree of evolution. We are the evidence because we didn't exist but our ancestors did.
True that our ancestors existed because we exist, but it cannot guarantee this hocus-pocus that our ancestors MYA were part monkey part rat creature.
Just because dinosaurs and prehistoric mamals existed MYA, it does not mean that we evolved from it.
Originally posted by maju
Yet, nowhere in the archaeological registry we can find any fossil evidence of the existence of God or what is described as the creation in the Genesis (nor even anything alike!). Therefore again, you seem to fail to catch what is essential to my logic and the logic of science. And that is only because, instead of understanding what I say and looking for the truth or falsehood in it with an open mind, you are looking for arguments and counter-arguments in order to defend your pre-conceptions.
The problem with that statement is that I've studied the generally-accepted concepts of Evolution. You haven't, and you are STILL assuming that evolution holds true, without a single clue of its mechanics from the molecular level.
I'm not as much knowlegeable but while you posted that this is a barrier for procreation, in many genders it is not. At least in the vegetal knigdom we have many cases of hybrids that are intermediate of species with different number of chromosomes and are fertile.
I can't discuss this point more in depth but guess that this difference is not any absolute barrier when the affected cromosome has broken soon before and therefore keeps the same overall structure, that is when the process of speciation in this regard is still in its infancy.
The organism you've mentioned in your second paragraph reminds me of a mule. You do know what a mule is, right?
I'm pretty sure you can get sterile hybrids in plants. But hybrids have nothing to do with it. New species aren't hybrids. They emerge from inside a predecessor species, not from interbreeding.
No you don't. DNA is the name of a type of structure. There aren't many DNAs so that you can talk about one DNA or another. Your grammar is totally out of kilter, pretty well invariably a sign that your thinking is too.
What there are are many DNA sequences. A gene is a sequence of bases: a DNA sequence. A chromosome is a sequence of genes: therefore a sequence of DNA sequences: therefore in its turn a DNA sequence.
That's what you're taught in basic biology, though it doesn't appear to be what you learned.
Out of the approximate 6 million base pairs from a DNA base sequence, only around 30,000~40,000 actually code for a protein. So there is 120,000 base pairs actually used, meaning that ONLY about 2% of the DNA sequence you are talking about codes for a gene. DNA itself is virtually empty, though there are a lot of different sequences that code for different proteins.
In simple words, DNA does not always equal gene.
By each DNA, I was referring to the Chromosome it belongs to during Metaphase.
And just because English is not my second language, it doesn't mean that I should be discouraged from trying to explains stuffs in english.
We all know that current scientific theories of evolution (there are more than one you know) cannot explain it fully. We know also that current theories of cosmology cannot explain the universe fully. We know also that current theories of quantum mechanics cannot explain the subject fully.
We live in hopes that day by day we will understand all of them better. But the fact that so far we don't understand, and can't explain, everything is neither here nor there. In the meantime the only explanations that are any use to us are the ones that may be false. Explanations like intelligent design or creatonism are of no use to anybody.
If that's all that you were saying, you could have said it more simply, and it wasn't worth the effort, anyway.
By that assumption, you are still speculating that evolution is indeed an occuring phenomena.
My point is that evolution should not be regarded as a theory, because its proofs regarding the macroevolution cannot fully explain certain facts coherently (like the chromosomal differences between apes and humans).
In the most succinct form possible:
If we still insist that evolution is right despite its inability to explain certain crucial facts, we would be nothing better than god-preaching bishops who claim god created everything.
Demon, you are just running around no arguments. You just say that there is some chance that my opinions and that of most scientists aren't true because you have grabbed a couple of uncomplete apparent contraditions in the speciation process.
Notice that I say that they are just apparent.
What do you think about the wingless cormorans of Galapagos? They are in an early stage of speciation. Do you think that they would be able to mate with flying cormorans from elsewhere? I am sure the are. Yet they are diferent species. The hybrid should be fertile because the speciation proccess is still young and the diferences between the two species are not yet so well defined. But Galapagos cormorans are bound to become a bird of penguin-like habits and not a flying bird anymore. Why because in the unique context of their enviroment of galapagos, swimming abilities are more important than flying ones.
Try observing nature not with the prejudiced eyes of someone that is persuaded by whatever reason that evolution doesn't exist but with the neutral eyes of a scientist... or a kid.
Just abandon your biases and observe disapassionately with curiosity. You have to defend nothing: just to find the truth.
No you don't. DNA is the name of a type of structure. There aren't many DNAs so that you can talk about one DNA or another. Your grammar is totally out of kilter, pretty well invariably a sign that your thinking is too.
What there are are many DNA sequences. A gene is a sequence of bases: a DNA sequence. A chromosome is a sequence of genes: therefore a sequence of DNA sequences: therefore in its turn a DNA sequence.
That's what you're taught in basic biology, though it doesn't appear to be what you learned.
Out of the approximate 6 million base pairs from a DNA base sequence, only around 30,000~40,000 actually code for a protein. So there is 120,000 base pairs actually used, meaning that ONLY about 2% of the DNA sequence you are talking about codes for a gene. DNA itself is virtually empty, though there are a lot of different sequences that code for different proteins.
In simple words, DNA does not always equal gene.
Nobody said it did. I said a gene was a DNA sequence. I didn't say all DNA sequences are genes.
What you said, originally, was "each DNA that contains thousands of genes... You learn that from basic biology" That was a nonsensical statement.
And what on earth do you mean by 'DNA is virtually empty'? DNA is a long chain molecule made up of various linked combinations of adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine. which can be grouped into 'genes'. Some of those base sequences have no known effect, and are therefore considered 'junk'.
So what? Of the millions of theoretically possible combinations only a few tens of thousands appear to be meaningful. What has that to do with anything.
By each DNA, I was referring to the Chromosome it belongs to during Metaphase.
'I didn't mean what I wrote' is not really a defence against the charge you were thinking sloppily when you wrote it.
And just because English is not my second language, it doesn't mean that I should be discouraged from trying to explains stuffs in english.
I didn't really understand what you meant here. If English is NOT your second language, why should anyone discourage you for using it? Or are you implying English is your third or fourth language?
We all know that current scientific theories of evolution (there are more than one you know) cannot explain it fully. We know also that current theories of cosmology cannot explain the universe fully. We know also that current theories of quantum mechanics cannot explain the subject fully.
We live in hopes that day by day we will understand all of them better. But the fact that so far we don't understand, and can't explain, everything is neither here nor there. In the meantime the only explanations that are any use to us are the ones that may be false. Explanations like intelligent design or creatonism are of no use to anybody.
If that's all that you were saying, you could have said it more simply, and it wasn't worth the effort, anyway.
By that assumption, you are still speculating that evolution is indeed an occuring phenomena.
My point is that evolution should not be regarded as a theory, because its proofs regarding the macroevolution cannot fully explain certain facts coherently (like the chromosomal differences between apes and humans)
Then you should hold that the general theory of relativity should not be regarded as a theory because it can't explain quantum mechanics (or, at least, no-one has yet found a way to do so). No cosmological theories should be accepted as theories because they fail to determine whether the universe is expanding or static, finite or infinite. Every scientific theory fails to explain some things. That is what makes them scientific.
You need to understand that any theory that explains everything is unscientific and worthless (pragmatically speaking). It is not a criticism of theories of evolution that they cannot explain everything. If you compare two theories, neither of which explains everything, so that each of them can be verified or falsified by experiment, but one explains more than the other, then take the one that explains most.
But if a theory explains everything so that it cannot be verified or falsified then avoid it.
In the most succinct form possible:
If we still insist that evolution is right despite its inability to explain certain crucial facts, we would be nothing better than god-preaching bishops who claim god created everything.
Again you are saying 'evolution is right'. Evolution is neither right nor wrong. Some theories of evolution probably explain things better than others, but no theory of evolution is right. All useful, valid scientific theories must be falsifiable. That is it must be possible to design an experiment to show they are wrong. Experiments to test them must be designed in order to show that they are wrong.
I agree that anyone who preaches that a theory of evolution is 'right' is in much the same position as a priest preaching his religion. But such a person is not a scientist.
Most of the current scientific theories of evolution allow us to predict what we will find. That makes them both useful and scientific. It does not mean they are right, nor that they explain everything (the way ID and creationsim do).
If you're looking for absolute certainty and 'rightness' then give up science now and find some appropriate religion.
Demon, you are just running around no arguments. You just say that there is some chance that my opinions and that of most scientists aren't true because you have grabbed a couple of uncomplete apparent contraditions in the speciation process.
Notice that I say that they are just apparent.
What do you think about the wingless cormorans of Galapagos? They are in an early stage of speciation. Do you think that they would be able to mate with flying cormorans from elsewhere? I am sure the are. Yet they are diferent species. The hybrid should be fertile because the speciation proccess is still young and the diferences between the two species are not yet so well defined. But Galapagos cormorans are bound to become a bird of penguin-like habits and not a flying bird anymore. Why because in the unique context of their enviroment of galapagos, swimming abilities are more important than flying ones.
Try observing nature not with the prejudiced eyes of someone that is persuaded by whatever reason that evolution doesn't exist but with the neutral eyes of a scientist... or a kid.
Just abandon your biases and observe disapassionately with curiosity. You have to defend nothing: just to find the truth.
No hurry.
Maju, I like you because of your signature, but I'll make this straight: Your example resembles more of a behavioral adaptation rather than evolution.
And you are such a hipocrite when you said "just apparent" because millions of years can't be just apparent, if you are following the theory of evolution in the first place.
And yeah, those successful offsprings might swim for around 5 more minutes over thousands of years, the way how many Marathoners in my country have parents whose family have dived for living before history, but that merely changes in the allele frequency of the population. They won't simply give rise to an extra set of chromosomes and new genes, and make them efficient swimmers like penguin.
By the "Just abandon your biases and observe disapassionately with curiosity. You have to defend nothing: just to find the truth. ", I just think that you should be condemned to a class of AP biology for the rest of your life so that you repent this post for eternity. You know, I'm into this debate because I KNOW what I'm talking about. You don't, yet you insist.
So if you are so reluctant to belive what I've just said, use your dispassionate thirst for knowledge to solve this: Explain to me how Gorillas obtained 2 extra chromosomes in their "speciation" from the human tree or vice versa.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Nobody said it did. I said a gene was a DNA sequence. I didn't say all DNA sequences are genes.
What you said, originally, was "each DNA that contains thousands of genes... You learn that from basic biology" That was a nonsensical statement.
And what on earth do you mean by 'DNA is virtually empty'? DNA is a long chain molecule made up of various linked combinations of adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine. which can be grouped into 'genes'. Some of those base sequences have no known effect, and are therefore considered 'junk'.
So what? Of the millions of theoretically possible combinations only a few tens of thousands appear to be meaningful. What has that to do with anything.
You know, since you haven't really studied biology, I don't know where to being with. So I'll just reply to the last paragraph.
What you've just said there, just contradicts your entire position of advocating evolution. Think about it,ok?
I didn't really understand what you meant here. If English is NOT your second language, why should anyone discourage you for using it? Or are you implying English is your third or fourth language?
LOL My bad.
Then you should hold that the general theory of relativity should not be regarded as a theory because it can't explain quantum mechanics (or, at least, no-one has yet found a way to do so). No cosmological theories should be accepted as theories because they fail to determine whether the universe is expanding or static, finite or infinite. Every scientific theory fails to explain some things. That is what makes them scientific.
You need to understand that any theory that explains everything is unscientific and worthless (pragmatically speaking). It is not a criticism of theories of evolution that they cannot explain everything. If you compare two theories, neither of which explains everything, so that each of them can be verified or falsified by experiment, but one explains more than the other, then take the one that explains most.
But if a theory explains everything so that it cannot be verified or falsified then avoid it.
Ok, so do you agree with Lamarkism?
Again you are saying 'evolution is right'. Evolution is neither right nor wrong. Some theories of evolution probably explain things better than others, but no theory of evolution is right. All useful, valid scientific theories must be falsifiable. That is it must be possible to design an experiment to show they are wrong. Experiments to test them must be designed in order to show that they are wrong.
I agree that anyone who preaches that a theory of evolution is 'right' is in much the same position as a priest preaching his religion. But such a person is not a scientist.
Most of the current scientific theories of evolution allow us to predict what we will find. That makes them both useful and scientific. It does not mean they are right, nor that they explain everything (the way ID and creationsim do).
If you're looking for absolute certainty and 'rightness' then give up science now and find some appropriate religion.
So yeah, tell me if you agree with lamarkism or not.
Also, about the "don't look for the absolute certainty" you've just said, you were just babbling like a philosopher. You don't even know how the theory of evoution expanded. So first was Darwin (well, it was also Wallace but he's work was insignificant compared to Darwin) who proposed it based upon hutton/lyell/malthus/lamarck theories with his own observations. Then we had scientists who used monecular biology to prove basically what Darwin theorized.
Some looked back onto Mendel's hereditary laws. Some discovered alleles for white eyes in fruit flies. Some discovered DNA -its phase of replication, Mitosis Meiosis....but they all explain Microevolution, not Macroevolution.
You know, because I know you'll blindly state "they have no difference because its the same thing and because evolution happens you are wrong" without crucial basic facts in Biology, I'll repeat what I've said earlier again. Macroevolution does not equal Microevolution. Look both of them up.
Demon: have you read/watched anything about the cormorans of Galapagos?
I doubt it. Else you would not say what you're saying. They can't fly
anymore (their wings have shrinked) but they do resemble normal
cormorans in almost anything else. At least by the moment.
Nothing remains. Everything changes.
And, don't worry. If your idol would actually exists, I would be
against him. No reason to repent. I have never bowed for long before
the whip. No matter how fearful it may be.
Some say: the greatest the enemy, the greatest the warrior. But Yaveh
is not any "great" anything, so I don't consider him any enemy. Not
anymore: I've passed that phase. And I won't ask any idol to repent. It
would be futile as idols don't have a soul or psyche.
As for idol-worshippers like you, who could be more important as you
actually have a soul or psyche. Scaring you would be silly.
Enlightening you is definitively a better and more worthy plan.
Would you ask the worm to be an lion? Would you ask the rat to be
horse? Why not to take things as they are... provisionally... in this
ever changing world?
Truth is not in words. To be two to agree is not to be two to be right.
I agree with Maju. I think that its up to us personally to be able to
find some truth in this world. Each of us has to ponder life's
questions with other people and also by trying to acquire knowledge but
truth or what the individual defines as truth lies with the person and
the person only.
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
Nobody said it did. I said a gene was a DNA sequence. I didn't say all DNA sequences are genes.
What you said, originally, was "each DNA that contains thousands of genes... You learn that from basic biology" That was a nonsensical statement.
And what on earth do you mean by 'DNA is virtually empty'? DNA is a long chain molecule made up of various linked combinations of adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine. which can be grouped into 'genes'. Some of those base sequences have no known effect, and are therefore considered 'junk'.
So what? Of the millions of theoretically possible combinations only a few tens of thousands appear to be meaningful. What has that to do with anything.
You know, since you haven't really studied biology, I don't know where to being with. So I'll just reply to the last paragraph.
Begin where you would have begun if I had been a biologist. I'll get one to translate for me.
What you've just said there, just contradicts your entire position of advocating evolution. Think about it,ok?
Once again I am not 'advocating evolution'. Evolution is an observed fact. It doesn't need me or anyone else to 'advocate' it. All I am advocating is using the scientific method to study it, and produce theories that (partially at least) explain it.
I am also advocating avoiding - like the plague - meaningless non-falsifiable theories like those of Intelligent design and creationism. In any science.
Moreover, that of all the millions of possible DNA sequences only a relative few are pragmatically useful has nothing to do with anything. In fact if only 2% of the genetic code needs to be useful for an organism tobe viable, that helps the hypothesis that variations occur at random, rather than hindering it.
I didn't really understand what you meant here. If English is NOT your second language, why should anyone discourage you for using it? Or are you implying English is your third or fourth language?
LOL My bad.
Then you should hold that the general theory of relativity should not be regarded as a theory because it can't explain quantum mechanics (or, at least, no-one has yet found a way to do so). No cosmological theories should be accepted as theories because they fail to determine whether the universe is expanding or static, finite or infinite. Every scientific theory fails to explain some things. That is what makes them scientific.
You need to understand that any theory that explains everything is unscientific and worthless (pragmatically speaking). It is not a criticism of theories of evolution that they cannot explain everything. If you compare two theories, neither of which explains everything, so that each of them can be verified or falsified by experiment, but one explains more than the other, then take the one that explains most.
But if a theory explains everything so that it cannot be verified or falsified then avoid it.
Ok, so do you agree with Lamarkism?
Try not to be silly. No I don't agree with Lamarkism. But it does happen to be a scientific theory, albeit one that doesn't stand up to experiment. It's wrong, but much superior to ID or creationism.
Again you are saying 'evolution is right'. Evolution is neither right nor wrong. Some theories of evolution probably explain things better than others, but no theory of evolution is right. All useful, valid scientific theories must be falsifiable. That is it must be possible to design an experiment to show they are wrong. Experiments to test them must be designed in order to show that they are wrong.
I agree that anyone who preaches that a theory of evolution is 'right' is in much the same position as a priest preaching his religion. But such a person is not a scientist.
Most of the current scientific theories of evolution allow us to predict what we will find. That makes them both useful and scientific. It does not mean they are right, nor that they explain everything (the way ID and creationsim do).
If you're looking for absolute certainty and 'rightness' then give up science now and find some appropriate religion.
So yeah, tell me if you agree with lamarkism or not.
I just did.
Also, about the "don't look for the absolute certainty" you've just said, you were just babbling like a philosopher. You don't even know how the theory of evoution expanded.
Yes, I do. I said I wasn't a biologist. I said I graduated specialising inter alia in the history of science. How variuos theories of evolution arose is a matter for a historian, not a biologist.
So first was Darwin (well, it was also Wallace but he's work was insignificant compared to Darwin) who proposed it based upon hutton/lyell/malthus/lamarck theories with his own observations. Then we had scientists who used monecular biology to prove basically what Darwin theorized.
Question for you: who came up with the idea of 'survival of the fittest'?
Some looked back onto Mendel's hereditary laws. Some discovered alleles for white eyes in fruit flies. Some discovered DNA -its phase of replication, Mitosis Meiosis....but they all explain Microevolution, not Macroevolution.
I fully understand the difference between mitosis and meiosis. I learned that somewhere around the age of 11, before the DNA/RNA mechanism had been discovered. It's hardly college level stuff. And I'm fully aware of how that replication process works.
Tell me something - just what claim to be a biologist - or any kind of scientist - do you have? You keep quoting high-school stuff, which I know, and assuming I don't know it, because I accept I haven't studied biology at degree level. I have however studied the history of biology at that level.
You know, because I know you'll blindly state "they have no difference because its the same thing and because evolution happens you are wrong" without crucial basic facts in Biology, I'll repeat what I've said earlier again. Macroevolution does not equal Microevolution. Look both of them up.
Evolution on the grand scale resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, large scale functional and structural changes, etc. www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/glossary.html
Note that different authorities ascribe formation of a new species to microevolution and to macroevolution. Note that everywhere the reference are to 'large-scale' or 'small-scale' or 'larger changes' and 'smaller changes'. A scale is a continuum, like a temperature scale. The difference is quantitative not qualitative.
One genetic modification is probably small-scale - micro. Lots of genetic modifications are large-scale - macro. It isn't quite that atraightforward because chaos theory's 'butterfly effect' may come into play. That is, small changes in the initial conditions may produce very large changes in the output conditions. So a 'micro' change may produce a 'macro' effect.
If you'd actually do some worthwhile reading instead of just sticking to your prejudices you might begin to understand some of this.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Evolution????
) I believe that the car will simply disappear to make way for me.
I'm following everything
on Mars exploration and I haven't read that. Anyhow, there is water out
there, we know via spectrometric analysis. So many suns and planets and
no other with life, even a strange and microscopical kind of life?
Impossible. 
What capricious and unscientific conditions. You're truly a 
I'm following everything on Mars exploration and I haven't read that. Anyhow, there is water out there, we know via spectrometric analysis. So many suns and planets and no other with life, even a strange and microscopical kind of life? Impossible. 
