Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > The Woodshed

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 11-08-2009, 03:37 PM
shon8121
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
If you understood anything about dating methods, you would know that none of them are truly reliable.
I'm not talking about Carbon Dating here Nate. Thats the one that gets blasted often because there have been tests where the appropriate variables have not been removed so it dated something to being older than it truly is.
I'm talking about the 5 different main methods of Radiometric Dating. Weird how you can get the same incorrect date when cross referencing these completely different methods.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
BTW, last I checked this is your thread. You started this topic and you are the one trying to convince all of us. So the burden of proof is 100% on your shoulders.
Uh... not actually. Thats not the way Science works. You see, in 150 years since the Theory was published... Science has only accumulated evidence in favor of Evolution. Some Scientists have gone so far to say "Nothing in Biology makes sense, except in light of Evolution."
But anyway, it's at the point where the Theory is in Falsifiability mode. If YOU or some other Scientist truly can prove it incorrect and supply a new Theory that fits the Data better... then you win a prize!
No really though, you'd probably win the Nobel Prize. The biggest prize in Science comes when you prove someone else or a well established Theory wrong. It's set up this way so that Science can be self correcting and improving its knowledge of how the Natural World works.
So again I wish you good luck.
I just enjoy discussing Evolution. I'm not very concerned about proving it to you... so if you don't accept it... thats fine... or rather I should say (like you have previously) if you DENY the evidences, thats fine and totally up to you. But you denying the Theory of Evolution doesn't make it any less true.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
BINGO!!!!
Our newest visitor is simply a troll..... a little free time on the weekend with nothing to do..
bursts onto the board as a "critical thinker" only to stir up crap and regurgitate other peoples opinions and theories....
Hardly a thinker at all...............
It's never been my intention to "stir up crap" here. I've desperately tried to be civil and respectful of other people's opinions so I wouldn't be taken the wrong way... but it appears it hasn't helped.
Um... so my self title "critical thinker" only applies when I bring forth Scientific facts that I came up with myself? Can you give me any of your ideas about how life works on this planet without using what someone else has told you, or what you have read from some other author?
Hypocrisy much?
Look, we stand on the shoulders of Giants who have accumulated an awful lot of information before we were even born. You were TOLD what the color green was. You didn't decide that on your own. Think about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizion
a Troll indeed.
Yeah you were on my tail from the moment I got here. I don't know what I've done to you personally, but I'm sorry.
And I'm done trying to convince you. If you don't like what I write, do me a favor and don't read it. There's no need to be rude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mscomc
Here man, I'll see if I can throw some info your way, since some people are just calling you a troll, (not nice by the way guys)..... since you brought up endogenous retroviruses, and i know little about em To be more specific about what your wrote (no offence by the way)
Oh no, no offense taken. However, "Endogenous Retroviruses" are completely different from "Transposons". Thats why when I listed the DNA evidences for Evolution, I said "these evidences separately strongly suggest a Common Ancestor, but together they prove it".
But I appreciate you going over it, it saved me some time!

Quote:
Originally Posted by KENTUCKYREDBONE
Like most on here I can accept adaptation and selective breeding but not one species turning into another! This Darwin view can in no way be proved and has turned into a religion of its own! To me Darwinism is almost occult like!
One species turning into another is a very gradual process... and I've already supplied observed Speciation in Nature, google "Ring Species". But I am currently working on giving more DNA evidences... theres a LOT.
I agree that "Darwinism" can be seen as a truly negative thing... especially when its "Social Darwinism". But I want to make sure you understand that not even Darwin was a "Social Darwinist". He simply made an observation and entitled it "Natural Selection" in which its commonly referred to as "the survival of the fittest". This absolutely occurs in Nature all the time, but we humans with out technology and medicine have pretty much sidestepped Natural selection for the most part so almost everyone can have children and pass on their genes. No one in their right mind would advocate for Social Darwinism... and I agree with you that it can be Occult like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard
I know one true dating method that is reliable. Get her drunk.
!!! *insert Marcus' laugh here from the Ultimate Fighter*
Hahahahaha!


Lets move on to one of my favorites next. Functionally Redundant Proteins.
There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.
Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn't matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone - you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.
Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).
Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism - all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.
There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.
Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship.

A good example would be that Humans and Chimpanzees have the exact same Cytochrome C Protein sequence. There are a minimum of 10 to the 93rd power possible functional Cytochrome C Protein sequences. For perspective, the number 10 to the 93rd power is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional Cytochrome C sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, Cytochrome C Protein sequences... not even if it had a "Common Designer".

This is not to say that there was no Designer, of course. Recall my position is that Yahweh could very well have caused simple life to begin on Earth a few Billion years ago... but then he would have undoubtedly used Evolution to create man.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-08-2009, 08:36 PM
mscomc
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by shon8121 View Post
I'm not talking about Carbon Dating here Nate. Thats the one that gets blasted often because there have been tests where the appropriate variables have not been removed so it dated something to being older than it truly is.
I'm talking about the 5 different main methods of Radiometric Dating. Weird how you can get the same incorrect date when cross referencing these completely different methods.




Uh... not actually. Thats not the way Science works. You see, in 150 years since the Theory was published... Science has only accumulated evidence in favor of Evolution. Some Scientists have gone so far to say "Nothing in Biology makes sense, except in light of Evolution."
But anyway, it's at the point where the Theory is in Falsifiability mode. If YOU or some other Scientist truly can prove it incorrect and supply a new Theory that fits the Data better... then you win a prize!
No really though, you'd probably win the Nobel Prize. The biggest prize in Science comes when you prove someone else or a well established Theory wrong. It's set up this way so that Science can be self correcting and improving its knowledge of how the Natural World works.
So again I wish you good luck.
I just enjoy discussing Evolution. I'm not very concerned about proving it to you... so if you don't accept it... thats fine... or rather I should say (like you have previously) if you DENY the evidences, thats fine and totally up to you. But you denying the Theory of Evolution doesn't make it any less true.




It's never been my intention to "stir up crap" here. I've desperately tried to be civil and respectful of other people's opinions so I wouldn't be taken the wrong way... but it appears it hasn't helped.
Um... so my self title "critical thinker" only applies when I bring forth Scientific facts that I came up with myself? Can you give me any of your ideas about how life works on this planet without using what someone else has told you, or what you have read from some other author?
Hypocrisy much?
Look, we stand on the shoulders of Giants who have accumulated an awful lot of information before we were even born. You were TOLD what the color green was. You didn't decide that on your own. Think about it.


Yeah you were on my tail from the moment I got here. I don't know what I've done to you personally, but I'm sorry.
And I'm done trying to convince you. If you don't like what I write, do me a favor and don't read it. There's no need to be rude.



Oh no, no offense taken. However, "Endogenous Retroviruses" are completely different from "Transposons". Thats why when I listed the DNA evidences for Evolution, I said "these evidences separately strongly suggest a Common Ancestor, but together they prove it".
But I appreciate you going over it, it saved me some time!



One species turning into another is a very gradual process... and I've already supplied observed Speciation in Nature, google "Ring Species". But I am currently working on giving more DNA evidences... theres a LOT.
I agree that "Darwinism" can be seen as a truly negative thing... especially when its "Social Darwinism". But I want to make sure you understand that not even Darwin was a "Social Darwinist". He simply made an observation and entitled it "Natural Selection" in which its commonly referred to as "the survival of the fittest". This absolutely occurs in Nature all the time, but we humans with out technology and medicine have pretty much sidestepped Natural selection for the most part so almost everyone can have children and pass on their genes. No one in their right mind would advocate for Social Darwinism... and I agree with you that it can be Occult like.



!!! *insert Marcus' laugh here from the Ultimate Fighter*
Hahahahaha!


Lets move on to one of my favorites next. Functionally Redundant Proteins.
There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.
Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn't matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone - you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.
Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).
Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism - all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.
There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.
Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship.

A good example would be that Humans and Chimpanzees have the exact same Cytochrome C Protein sequence. There are a minimum of 10 to the 93rd power possible functional Cytochrome C Protein sequences. For perspective, the number 10 to the 93rd power is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional Cytochrome C sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, Cytochrome C Protein sequences... not even if it had a "Common Designer".

This is not to say that there was no Designer, of course. Recall my position is that Yahweh could very well have caused simple life to begin on Earth a few Billion years ago... but then he would have undoubtedly used Evolution to create man.
OOOO good shot man. I forgot about that. You are right about the cytocrhome C information and the probability surrounding it......

Another thing i always found amaizing, is our homology even to E.Coli.

1) We have many of the same enzymes....
-----almost identical DNA polymerase
------ Glycolytic enzymes like phosphofructokinase 1 and many others
------ we both read DNA in the 5' ------3' direction
---------- we both read it only 3 nuceotides at a time
---------- the ribosomal sub-units we use to make protein are very homologous to one another
------ We both use A, G, C, T

But the big one for me is, WE both use ATP as our final molecule of energy currency.....

****there is like a million more examples. I have to say, that has always made me think.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-08-2009, 09:27 PM
Play The Man's Avatar
Play The Man Play The Man is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,263
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shon8121 View Post
I'm not talking about Carbon Dating here Nate. Thats the one that gets blasted often because there have been tests where the appropriate variables have not been removed so it dated something to being older than it truly is.
I'm talking about the 5 different main methods of Radiometric Dating. Weird how you can get the same incorrect date when cross referencing these completely different methods.




Uh... not actually. Thats not the way Science works. You see, in 150 years since the Theory was published... Science has only accumulated evidence in favor of Evolution. Some Scientists have gone so far to say "Nothing in Biology makes sense, except in light of Evolution."
But anyway, it's at the point where the Theory is in Falsifiability mode. If YOU or some other Scientist truly can prove it incorrect and supply a new Theory that fits the Data better... then you win a prize!
No really though, you'd probably win the Nobel Prize. The biggest prize in Science comes when you prove someone else or a well established Theory wrong. It's set up this way so that Science can be self correcting and improving its knowledge of how the Natural World works.
So again I wish you good luck.
I just enjoy discussing Evolution. I'm not very concerned about proving it to you... so if you don't accept it... thats fine... or rather I should say (like you have previously) if you DENY the evidences, thats fine and totally up to you. But you denying the Theory of Evolution doesn't make it any less true.




It's never been my intention to "stir up crap" here. I've desperately tried to be civil and respectful of other people's opinions so I wouldn't be taken the wrong way... but it appears it hasn't helped.
Um... so my self title "critical thinker" only applies when I bring forth Scientific facts that I came up with myself? Can you give me any of your ideas about how life works on this planet without using what someone else has told you, or what you have read from some other author?
Hypocrisy much?
Look, we stand on the shoulders of Giants who have accumulated an awful lot of information before we were even born. You were TOLD what the color green was. You didn't decide that on your own. Think about it.


Yeah you were on my tail from the moment I got here. I don't know what I've done to you personally, but I'm sorry.
And I'm done trying to convince you. If you don't like what I write, do me a favor and don't read it. There's no need to be rude.



Oh no, no offense taken. However, "Endogenous Retroviruses" are completely different from "Transposons". Thats why when I listed the DNA evidences for Evolution, I said "these evidences separately strongly suggest a Common Ancestor, but together they prove it".
But I appreciate you going over it, it saved me some time!



One species turning into another is a very gradual process... and I've already supplied observed Speciation in Nature, google "Ring Species". But I am currently working on giving more DNA evidences... theres a LOT.
I agree that "Darwinism" can be seen as a truly negative thing... especially when its "Social Darwinism". But I want to make sure you understand that not even Darwin was a "Social Darwinist". He simply made an observation and entitled it "Natural Selection" in which its commonly referred to as "the survival of the fittest". This absolutely occurs in Nature all the time, but we humans with out technology and medicine have pretty much sidestepped Natural selection for the most part so almost everyone can have children and pass on their genes. No one in their right mind would advocate for Social Darwinism... and I agree with you that it can be Occult like.



!!! *insert Marcus' laugh here from the Ultimate Fighter*
Hahahahaha!


Lets move on to one of my favorites next. Functionally Redundant Proteins.
There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.
Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn't matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone - you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.
Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).
Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism - all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.
There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.
Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship.

A good example would be that Humans and Chimpanzees have the exact same Cytochrome C Protein sequence. There are a minimum of 10 to the 93rd power possible functional Cytochrome C Protein sequences. For perspective, the number 10 to the 93rd power is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional Cytochrome C sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, Cytochrome C Protein sequences... not even if it had a "Common Designer".

This is not to say that there was no Designer, of course. Recall my position is that Yahweh could very well have caused simple life to begin on Earth a few Billion years ago... but then he would have undoubtedly used Evolution to create man.
Please list 5 pieces of evidence that you believe would suggest that evolution is false (I am not saying that this evidence exists, I am saying list 5 theoretical pieces of evidence that if presented to you would cause you to doubt or disbelieve Darwinian evolution as a cause for all living matter coming from one common ancestor)? I know that you believe that the theory is true. If it is not just a circular tautology, but a theory, then evidence should cause you to abandon it if faced with contrary evidence. What would that evidence be?
__________________
"Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man! We shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."
--Hugh Latimer, October 16, 1555
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-08-2009, 10:12 PM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The world is but 6000 years old so the whole mirco over time logic is nothing more then a fallacy. When God created the earth he created everything fully mature. Adam was not created an infant. So sure the Grand Canyon may appear ancient but that was exactly how God intended it. The ancient people in that areas history even reflect this. Even Darwin knew his theory was crap but his buddy Huxley through great propaganda spread a lie as plausible truth. The only truth is Gods truth and it says he created it and it was not from primordial ooze either.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-08-2009, 10:22 PM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shon8121 View Post
I'm not talking about Carbon Dating here Nate. Thats the one that gets blasted often because there have been tests where the appropriate variables have not been removed so it dated something to being older than it truly is.
I'm talking about the 5 different main methods of Radiometric Dating. Weird how you can get the same incorrect date when cross referencing these completely different methods.




Uh... not actually. Thats not the way Science works. You see, in 150 years since the Theory was published... Science has only accumulated evidence in favor of Evolution. Some Scientists have gone so far to say "Nothing in Biology makes sense, except in light of Evolution."
But anyway, it's at the point where the Theory is in Falsifiability mode. If YOU or some other Scientist truly can prove it incorrect and supply a new Theory that fits the Data better... then you win a prize!
No really though, you'd probably win the Nobel Prize. The biggest prize in Science comes when you prove someone else or a well established Theory wrong. It's set up this way so that Science can be self correcting and improving its knowledge of how the Natural World works.
So again I wish you good luck.
I just enjoy discussing Evolution. I'm not very concerned about proving it to you... so if you don't accept it... thats fine... or rather I should say (like you have previously) if you DENY the evidences, thats fine and totally up to you. But you denying the Theory of Evolution doesn't make it any less true.




It's never been my intention to "stir up crap" here. I've desperately tried to be civil and respectful of other people's opinions so I wouldn't be taken the wrong way... but it appears it hasn't helped.
Um... so my self title "critical thinker" only applies when I bring forth Scientific facts that I came up with myself? Can you give me any of your ideas about how life works on this planet without using what someone else has told you, or what you have read from some other author?
Hypocrisy much?
Look, we stand on the shoulders of Giants who have accumulated an awful lot of information before we were even born. You were TOLD what the color green was. You didn't decide that on your own. Think about it.


Yeah you were on my tail from the moment I got here. I don't know what I've done to you personally, but I'm sorry.
And I'm done trying to convince you. If you don't like what I write, do me a favor and don't read it. There's no need to be rude.



Oh no, no offense taken. However, "Endogenous Retroviruses" are completely different from "Transposons". Thats why when I listed the DNA evidences for Evolution, I said "these evidences separately strongly suggest a Common Ancestor, but together they prove it".
But I appreciate you going over it, it saved me some time!



One species turning into another is a very gradual process... and I've already supplied observed Speciation in Nature, google "Ring Species". But I am currently working on giving more DNA evidences... theres a LOT.
I agree that "Darwinism" can be seen as a truly negative thing... especially when its "Social Darwinism". But I want to make sure you understand that not even Darwin was a "Social Darwinist". He simply made an observation and entitled it "Natural Selection" in which its commonly referred to as "the survival of the fittest". This absolutely occurs in Nature all the time, but we humans with out technology and medicine have pretty much sidestepped Natural selection for the most part so almost everyone can have children and pass on their genes. No one in their right mind would advocate for Social Darwinism... and I agree with you that it can be Occult like.



!!! *insert Marcus' laugh here from the Ultimate Fighter*
Hahahahaha!


Lets move on to one of my favorites next. Functionally Redundant Proteins.
There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.
Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn't matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone - you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.
Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).
Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism - all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.
There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.
Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship.

A good example would be that Humans and Chimpanzees have the exact same Cytochrome C Protein sequence. There are a minimum of 10 to the 93rd power possible functional Cytochrome C Protein sequences. For perspective, the number 10 to the 93rd power is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Thus, functional Cytochrome C sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, Cytochrome C Protein sequences... not even if it had a "Common Designer".

This is not to say that there was no Designer, of course. Recall my position is that Yahweh could very well have caused simple life to begin on Earth a few Billion years ago... but then he would have undoubtedly used Evolution to create man.
Really what it boils down to is your faith is in man made science textbooks. Much of us's faith is in a God inspired book we believe to be the Word of God. The 2 are not compatible. If a science book contradict scripture it is the science that is wrong. There was a time science thought the world was flat. Once science taught there were only 1,100 stars, the bible said they were innumerable (Jer 33:22) Science once taught the earth sat upon an animal. The bible taught it was free floating in space (Job 26:7). SO science was wrong then even when scripture was true. A lot of what is discovered today was already proved in the bible centuries ago. So this theory is just as asinine as those of old. Science needs to stick to things that has verifiable and re creatable facts. Just because you read it in a textbook or your PhD told you it was true does nto make it so. If it were true then science would not have had to invent fossils to prove their theories or call pig skulls human.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-08-2009, 11:56 PM
Chuck
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
Really what it boils down to is your faith is in man made science textbooks. Much of us's faith is in a God inspired book we believe to be the Word of God. The 2 are not compatible. If a science book contradict scripture it is the science that is wrong. There was a time science thought the world was flat. Once science taught there were only 1,100 stars, the bible said they were innumerable (Jer 33:22) Science once taught the earth sat upon an animal. The bible taught it was free floating in space (Job 26:7). SO science was wrong then even when scripture was true. A lot of what is discovered today was already proved in the bible centuries ago. So this theory is just as asinine as those of old. Science needs to stick to things that has verifiable and re creatable facts. Just because you read it in a textbook or your PhD told you it was true does nto make it so. If it were true then science would not have had to invent fossils to prove their theories or call pig skulls human.
+1
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-09-2009, 12:14 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
The world is but 6000 years old so the whole mirco over time logic is nothing more then a fallacy. When God created the earth he created everything fully mature. Adam was not created an infant. So sure the Grand Canyon may appear ancient but that was exactly how God intended it. The ancient people in that areas history even reflect this. Even Darwin knew his theory was crap but his buddy Huxley through great propaganda spread a lie as plausible truth. The only truth is Gods truth and it says he created it and it was not from primordial ooze either.
Well, the word "evolution" simply means a slow change over time. It existed more than 2 centuries before Darwin's theory, so in it's pre-Darwin form I have no problem believing it because we can observe it.

For instance, GOD obviously didn't create all the different races of humankind separately, since we are all related by common parents: Adam and Eve. So the environmental adaptations that mark the different human races on Earth could be understood as Micro-Evolution (even though I think Adaptation is a better description).

However, evolution implies that the subject is moving from simple to complex. In that sense, I don't believe the word applies, since there is no indication whatsoever that new genetic information is added in successive generations. If anything, we are losing genetic information with each generation and our DNA is degrading as the centuries pass.

Despite what many people claim, dogs and cats are not good examples of any form of evolution, since most breeds of dogs are a result of human intervention and selective breeding.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-09-2009, 03:33 AM
shon8121
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mscomc View Post
OOOO good shot man. I forgot about that. You are right about the cytocrhome C information and the probability surrounding it......

Another thing i always found amaizing, is our homology even to E.Coli.

1) We have many of the same enzymes....
-----almost identical DNA polymerase
------ Glycolytic enzymes like phosphofructokinase 1 and many others
------ we both read DNA in the 5' ------3' direction
---------- we both read it only 3 nuceotides at a time
---------- the ribosomal sub-units we use to make protein are very homologous to one another
------ We both use A, G, C, T

But the big one for me is, WE both use ATP as our final molecule of energy currency.....

****there is like a million more examples. I have to say, that has always made me think.
And thats all that truly matters to me... is to get people to think just a little more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Play The Man
Please list 5 pieces of evidence that you believe would suggest that evolution is false (I am not saying that this evidence exists, I am saying list 5 theoretical pieces of evidence that if presented to you would cause you to doubt or disbelieve Darwinian evolution as a cause for all living matter coming from one common ancestor)? I know that you believe that the theory is true. If it is not just a circular tautology, but a theory, then evidence should cause you to abandon it if faced with contrary evidence. What would that evidence be?
5? Hmmm. Lets see...
1.) If we were to find a Human skeleton in the same Sedimentary Rock Layers as... say... a Tyrannosaurus Rex?
2.) If some new Geological evidence overwhelmingly suggested the Earth to be younger than the 4.5 Billion years its been dated to. If significantly younger... the mechanics of Evolution would have to be much faster than Science understands them to be.
3.) If all life forms used different amino acids, instead of the same 20 ... or if there were a different mapping of DNA codons to amino acids ... they could not have evolved from a common ancestor.
4.) If all structures were perfectly designed specifically for their function, instead of common structures being *repurposed* for different functions. (E.g. if a bat's wing and bird's wing had the same structure, because they have the same function ... instead of finding, as we have, that the bat's wing is closer in structure to the human hand, or the digging front paws of a mole ... indicating a mammalian front-limb *repurposed* for flying.)
5.) Lack of any genetic pattern supporting common ancestry.

Uh, any of those could probably Falsify Evolution... or at least make a lot of Scientists confused as to figure out how something could have occured that way. Haha.
So what does this mean? Should I ask you for 5 things that would convince you that Evolution were true? Nah. There's enough in this thread already to convince someone who is intellectually honest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F
The world is but 6000 years old so the whole mirco over time logic is nothing more then a fallacy. When God created the earth he created everything fully mature. Adam was not created an infant. So sure the Grand Canyon may appear ancient but that was exactly how God intended it. The ancient people in that areas history even reflect this. Even Darwin knew his theory was crap but his buddy Huxley through great propaganda spread a lie as plausible truth. The only truth is Gods truth and it says he created it and it was not from primordial ooze either.
How do you determine that the world is 6,000 years old? I've heard from many Christians that "gods day" is much much longer than a Human day... like on the scale of Millions of years. *shrug*
Uh, it's a myth that Darwin ever recanted his Theory. Didn't happen. But even if it had, that wouldn't make Evolution any less true.
Oh, and uh perhaps you didn't pay attention to the very first post I made. Abiogenesis is a completely different field than Evolution. Abiogenesis has to do with the Origin of life, and I already conceded that your god could have been responsible for it. Evolution is just the change populations of Organisms experience over time... which also could have been directed by your god. Is it not possible that your god desired to keep the story simple as to get to the whole point of Sin and Salvation in the Bible?

Quote:
Really what it boils down to is your faith is in man made science textbooks. Much of us's faith is in a God inspired book we believe to be the Word of God. The 2 are not compatible. If a science book contradict scripture it is the science that is wrong. There was a time science thought the world was flat. Once science taught there were only 1,100 stars, the bible said they were innumerable (Jer 33:22) Science once taught the earth sat upon an animal. The bible taught it was free floating in space (Job 26:7). SO science was wrong then even when scripture was true. A lot of what is discovered today was already proved in the bible centuries ago. So this theory is just as asinine as those of old. Science needs to stick to things that has verifiable and re creatable facts. Just because you read it in a textbook or your PhD told you it was true does nto make it so. If it were true then science would not have had to invent fossils to prove their theories or call pig skulls human.
Uh... haha, I have no Faith in Science. I'm not any more skeptical about your Religious beliefs than I am about every new Scientific idea I hear about. The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true.
I do not have faith in Technology. I do not have Faith in Medicine. I trust (which is different than Faith) that these things are true because Science routinely comes through on it's promises. If you distrust Science and the Theories that contradict your literal interpretation of the Bible... then stop using your computer to bash the very same Scientific Method that was used to create it... because those methods also derived our knowledge of Evolution.
Maybe I would put more Faith in your Holy Text if it had claimed tiny unseeable creatures (Germ THEORY) as being responsible for illnesses... but instead, it claims that Demons are reponsible, and only exorcism can rid people of these Demons and thus the illness.
Pig Skull? What on Earth are you talking about? I suggest you get with the times and recognize that we have more than enough Transitional Fossils to document the Ancestry of Man from Ape-like Ancestors. You name one hoax that was put forth by Scientists as a genuine fossil. The hoaxes i nthe past were discovered by... you guessed it, fellow Scientists who continued to accept Evolution after the mistake was corrected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
For instance, GOD obviously didn't create all the different races of humankind separately, since we are all related by common parents: Adam and Eve. So the environmental adaptations that mark the different human races on Earth could be understood as Micro-Evolution (even though I think Adaptation is a better description).
Um... do you not see an issue with this? You are advocating more Evolution in a faster amount of time than even the Theory suggests. You are advocating "Super" Evolution. That would give each Race about a thousand or 2 years to give them their specific features and skin color.

Quote:
However, evolution implies that the subject is moving from simple to complex. In that sense, I don't believe the word applies, since there is no indication whatsoever that new genetic information is added in successive generations. If anything, we are losing genetic information with each generation and our DNA is degrading as the centuries pass.
Forgive me as I pull a "copy and paste", but I don't have this information yet memorized...
By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of:
•increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
•increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
•novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
•novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
•Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
•RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
•Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-09-2009, 04:14 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shon8121 View Post
Um... do you not see an issue with this? You are advocating more Evolution in a faster amount of time than even the Theory suggests. You are advocating "Super" Evolution. That would give each Race about a thousand or 2 years to give them their specific features and skin color.
Actually, it would be about 6000 years (or 5770 years if you go by the Jewish calendar) and, no, I have no issue with that at all since the differences between the races are pretty superficial and insignificant when you get right down to it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-09-2009, 04:39 AM
Play The Man's Avatar
Play The Man Play The Man is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,263
Default

Shon8121, concerning your point of evidence number 2, why do you think current concepts of panspermia are being advanced? The fossil record doesn't give enough time for Darwinian evolution of cells based upon current understanding of mutation rates and the age of the earth vs. the time the cellular organisms appear in the fossil record. Some scientists are trying to come up with an explanation for this by saying that cellular organisms were transported to the earth on meteors from other planets. Some scientists (Crick from Watson and Crick) are really coming out of left field by saying that space aliens purposely colonized this planet with cells. The reason they are coming up with these off-the-wall theories is because of a discrepancy in the time of the appearance of "primitive" cellular organism in the fossil record as compared to the estimated age of the earth. Their appearance is "too soon" based upon Darwinian Evolution.
__________________
"Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man! We shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."
--Hugh Latimer, October 16, 1555
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.