100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Creation vs. Evolution. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I agree with natural selection, I agree with mutation combined with natural selection . . . and thread! The rest is just you confusing yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 05/09/12 12:12 PM
|
|
Okay so now how about the statement that mating is "random." If mating is simply "random" then we should all have mates. (We don't need mingle, all we need to do is go into a shopping mall and find a member of the opposite sex and randomly pair up.) Mating is not simply random. In fact, like attracts like. First, I have to clarify: I'm not arguing that those "scientists" were 100% right, I'm arguing that you are wrong. The use of the word "luck" can be used in a scientific paper. Randomness does exist. Second of all, even if mating were completely random, it wouldn't mean that every individual would have a mate. That is a non sequitur. Third, I agree that mating is not random. I am not saying that a scientific paper can't use the term "luck." They can and they do. I am saying that I think it is unscientific. In a perfect "cause and effect environment" randomness cannot exist. BUT ours is not a perfect cause and effect environment because WE (AND CONSCIOUSNESS) exist here in this environment. We, (thinking conscious beings) and every living thing and thinking conscious being is the random factor. We are the ones who are the "cause" of what appears to be "randomness." So yes, randomness does exist but it exists because of consciousness. Consciousness exists. Scientists think they are the only creatures on earth who are conscious.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NO, what you are doing is trying to frame the argument so that evolution cannot be true, by making evolution something its not. That is called a straw man. If you drop the BS, Drop the BS ... haha I like the personal stuff. There's no straw man, its only evolutionists that don't seem to have realised that their own theory requires beneficial increases (mutations) to the genome size. Sure a lot of the genome size means nothing, but increases in complexity passed down through breeding, from a single cell organism to humans of 3 billion DNA base pairs sorta rests on genome increases of some sort. Really could ALL the DNA usefulness required for a human to survive already exist in the genome of a single celled organism? No, beneficial increases are required, this is no strawman argument, and evolutionists have got no proof of these beneficial increases in size. Evolution is an interesting hypothesis, I enjoy imaginative creative thinking. and just take the time to really honestly go through those videos, take notes even, take umbrage with the evidence if you want. We can discuss that, I am not discussing your straw man however. Jot down the time in the vid, and present why its wrong. Those videos are not wrong. They present interesting possibilities in a very logical manner. They just fail to back it up with proof. A lot of their arguments against creationists do not apply to me, because I do agree with the possibilities presented, unlike other creationists who will cry "impossible!", I say "interesting possibility". So for me personally they are strawman arguments, for example I do not rely on the irreducibility complex argument. Natural selection does definitely work, this is not just a possibility but an observed and logical reality. Its only when trying to extend natural selection to continuous complexifying mutations that evolution fails as a theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With all due respect, you do not understand the comments or the references. The telomeres are positive proof of the condition that you have predetermined cannot be proven, therefore your position states that your position is confirmed when in actuality, you simply don't understand the proof. You said that telomeres could have a creator purpose which is just silly. Your understanding of polymorphism in the context of chromosomal polymorphism is completely opposite of reality. I respect your beliefs even if you want to force false information into your version of "proof". Your lack of understanding of these processes does not translate into my lack of understanding of these processes. You are using intellectual dishonesty to try to make a point and all you are really doing is showing that you do not understand the topic sufficiently to debate on a scientific level. If you go back and carefully reread your statements in this thread, you change your facts to match your theory. You change your understanding of facts presented to you to match your theory. When all else fails, you state that I am not making a point that you don't understand because it doesn't fit your theory. If you are just learning about telomeres, you are a newbie to the topic by any standard. As my father used to say, "No one ever learned anything with their mouth open." Try rereading my posts again with an open mind. You might learn something. I don't have any axes to grind on this topic. You obviously do. I used the Wiki post because it is simple and well written and, to my knowledge, nothing in it is scientifically disputed. I suggest you go back and reread the reason great apes have one more chromosome than we do. It's not that complicated. Neither is the reason our DNA has snippets of Neanderthal. I did carefully read all your posts and wiki quotes and frankly you do not understand your own quotes. Telomeres generally have a function as you mentioned. Where telomeres appear in a unique position where they do not function, this appears to be a mutation and not beneficial. I fail to see how either the functional telomeres or the non-functional telomeres in the human genome would provide any advantage to the evolution position. A system that works well is not proof of evolution, neither is a mutation that does not function any proof of evolution. Only a DNA lengthening mutation which is beneficial would help your cause. Wow! You really struggle hard to twist facts. Let me explain it to you in slightly simpler terms. The telomere (which you admitted you know nothing about) keeps the ends of DNA from unraveling. The posts you misinterpret describe how, through inter specie breeding match uneven numbers of chromosomes and the TELOMERE was used to attach the new unmatched chromosomes into a new longer chromosomes (two into one) using the TELOMERE as the binding agent and absolute proof of chromosome lengthening. The TELOMERE is then left intact in the middle of the strand showing what happened and how it happened i.e., DNA lengthening. Where telomeres exist inside a DNA strand they no longer provide the function of keeping the ends of DNA from unraveling but they now act as the glue that holds the two former strands together. Newsflash. The discussion on polymorphism explains (to those who can understand it) the mechanism where combined strands of DNA have the ability to use the duplicate genes as mutation options (since they are duplicates they are redundant) and allow the chromosome to acquire different genes. You really need to go to school. Here is your obviously first lesson. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/did-copying-mistake-build-man-brain/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay so now how about the statement that mating is "random." If mating is simply "random" then we should all have mates. (We don't need mingle, all we need to do is go into a shopping mall and find a member of the opposite sex and randomly pair up.) Mating is not simply random. In fact, like attracts like. True ! Let's not forget that we are on a dating site 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Wed 05/09/12 01:09 PM
|
|
You really need to go to school. Here is your obviously first lesson. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/did-copying-mistake-build-man-brain/ They found a piece of duplicated mutation of the human brain gene, and put it into mice, and now their brains seem better. Their thoughts: the duplicate piece of brain gene may just be useful to humans too. hahahahaha Surely the correct conclusion is that you add any human brain genes to mice their brain will look more like humans? Sure there could be proofs that gene duplication can start having a function, this isnt it: here's part of the article mentioned above: The researchers THINK this partially duplicated gene is able to interfere with the actions of the original, ancestral copy of SRGAP2. When the researchers added the partially duplicated gene copy to the mouse genome (mice don’t normally have it) it seemed to speed the migration of brain cells during development, which makes brain organization more efficient. These cells that expressed the incomplete duplication of SRGAP2 also had more "spines" — knoblike extensions on the cell surface that connect with other brain cells, which make them look more like human brain cells. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well perhaps that is evidence that an advanced race of alien beings came to the earth and took the primitive humans living here and souped up their genes with some of their own to make primitive earthlings smarter and help them a bit with their "evolution."
Hence the legends of the Gods and the Adam and Eve project. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with natural selection, I agree with mutation combined with natural selection . . . and thread! The rest is just you confusing yourself. Ooh nasty! :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Wed 05/09/12 01:55 PM
|
|
Wow! You really struggle hard to twist facts. Let me explain it to you in slightly simpler terms. The telomere (which you admitted you know nothing about) keeps the ends of DNA from unraveling. The posts you misinterpret describe how, through inter specie breeding match uneven numbers of chromosomes and the TELOMERE was used to attach the new unmatched chromosomes into a new longer chromosomes (two into one) using the TELOMERE as the binding agent and absolute proof of chromosome lengthening. The TELOMERE is then left intact in the middle of the strand showing what happened and how it happened i.e., DNA lengthening. Where telomeres exist inside a DNA strand they no longer provide the function of keeping the ends of DNA from unraveling but they now act as the glue that holds the two former strands together. Newsflash. The discussion on polymorphism explains (to those who can understand it) the mechanism where combined strands of DNA have the ability to use the duplicate genes as mutation options (since they are duplicates they are redundant) and allow the chromosome to acquire different genes. On page 18 you have two long quotes from Wikipedia concerning the subject of polymorphism. Neither quote mentioned anything like your description above, except for the one word "polyploidy" in the middle of your first wikipedia quote. This is the only time the Wikipedia articles mentioned a DNA lengthening process, of chromosone duplication, but it does not mention it in the manner you have described above, no mention is made of telomeres in that quote concerning polyploidy. Then the other post by you mentions telomeres, but in the context of a split chromosone, not an increased or duplicated chromosone. But referring to your explanation above, I have always agreed that DNA can lengthen through mutation, I just haven't yet seen it lengthen in a beneficial manner, in such a way that we could see how evolution could create the fully functional 32000 genes of the human genome. Sure the human genome carries a lot of useless "junk DNA" but what process made it get so FUNCTIONALLY long? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay so now how about the statement that mating is "random." If mating is simply "random" then we should all have mates. (We don't need mingle, all we need to do is go into a shopping mall and find a member of the opposite sex and randomly pair up.) Mating is not simply random. In fact, like attracts like. Mating is not completely random, but mating most definitely has a random component to it. For the purposes of the biologist, looking at the evolution of an entire species, treating mating as 'random' works as a simplifying assumption. If mating is completely random, evolution works. If mating is not completely random, just mostly random, evolution still works. If mate selection is strongly influenced by cultural factors, evolution still works. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! You really struggle hard to twist facts. Let me explain it to you in slightly simpler terms. The telomere (which you admitted you know nothing about) keeps the ends of DNA from unraveling. The posts you misinterpret describe how, through inter specie breeding match uneven numbers of chromosomes and the TELOMERE was used to attach the new unmatched chromosomes into a new longer chromosomes (two into one) using the TELOMERE as the binding agent and absolute proof of chromosome lengthening. The TELOMERE is then left intact in the middle of the strand showing what happened and how it happened i.e., DNA lengthening. Where telomeres exist inside a DNA strand they no longer provide the function of keeping the ends of DNA from unraveling but they now act as the glue that holds the two former strands together. Newsflash. The discussion on polymorphism explains (to those who can understand it) the mechanism where combined strands of DNA have the ability to use the duplicate genes as mutation options (since they are duplicates they are redundant) and allow the chromosome to acquire different genes. On page 18 you have two long quotes from Wikipedia concerning the subject of polymorphism. Neither quote mentioned anything like your description above, except for the one word "polyploidy" in the middle of your first wikipedia quote. This is the only time the Wikipedia articles mentioned a DNA lengthening process, of chromosone duplication, but it does not mention it in the manner you have described above, no mention is made of telomeres in that quote concerning polyploidy. Then the other post by you mentions telomeres, but in the context of a split chromosone, not an increased or duplicated chromosone. But referring to your explanation above, I have always agreed that DNA can lengthen through mutation, I just haven't yet seen it lengthen in a beneficial manner, in such a way that we could see how evolution could create the fully functional 32000 genes of the human genome. Sure the human genome carries a lot of useless "junk DNA" but what process made it get so FUNCTIONALLY long? You will never see it. You don't see the connection between my later post and the Wiki posts. You don't see the connections ... period ... because you have already made your mind up and nothing will change it. You didn't come here to learn or seek answers to questions. You came here to denounce science in a topic of which you are poorly informed. Just be honest and state what you believe. All this crap about "proof" is just you showing how much you don't understand about how evolution works. Proof would only work for you if you were able to understand it and your mind is slammed shut tightly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay so now how about the statement that mating is "random." If mating is simply "random" then we should all have mates. (We don't need mingle, all we need to do is go into a shopping mall and find a member of the opposite sex and randomly pair up.) Mating is not simply random. In fact, like attracts like. Mating is not completely random, but mating most definitely has a random component to it. For the purposes of the biologist, looking at the evolution of an entire species, treating mating as 'random' works as a simplifying assumption. If mating is completely random, evolution works. If mating is not completely random, just mostly random, evolution still works. If mate selection is strongly influenced by cultural factors, evolution still works. Well evolution, is still not called "fact." It is still called "theory." And while I believe that evolution within a species clearly does happen, can anyone identify a particular species that has changed over to another species? The "evidence" for evolution just appears to be indications and clues. But is there proof? If there was, then what they call "theory" would be called "fact." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! You really struggle hard to twist facts. Let me explain it to you in slightly simpler terms. The telomere (which you admitted you know nothing about) keeps the ends of DNA from unraveling. The posts you misinterpret describe how, through inter specie breeding match uneven numbers of chromosomes and the TELOMERE was used to attach the new unmatched chromosomes into a new longer chromosomes (two into one) using the TELOMERE as the binding agent and absolute proof of chromosome lengthening. The TELOMERE is then left intact in the middle of the strand showing what happened and how it happened i.e., DNA lengthening. Where telomeres exist inside a DNA strand they no longer provide the function of keeping the ends of DNA from unraveling but they now act as the glue that holds the two former strands together. Newsflash. The discussion on polymorphism explains (to those who can understand it) the mechanism where combined strands of DNA have the ability to use the duplicate genes as mutation options (since they are duplicates they are redundant) and allow the chromosome to acquire different genes. On page 18 you have two long quotes from Wikipedia concerning the subject of polymorphism. Neither quote mentioned anything like your description above, except for the one word "polyploidy" in the middle of your first wikipedia quote. This is the only time the Wikipedia articles mentioned a DNA lengthening process, of chromosone duplication, but it does not mention it in the manner you have described above, no mention is made of telomeres in that quote concerning polyploidy. Then the other post by you mentions telomeres, but in the context of a split chromosone, not an increased or duplicated chromosone. But referring to your explanation above, I have always agreed that DNA can lengthen through mutation, I just haven't yet seen it lengthen in a beneficial manner, in such a way that we could see how evolution could create the fully functional 32000 genes of the human genome. Sure the human genome carries a lot of useless "junk DNA" but what process made it get so FUNCTIONALLY long? You will never see it. You don't see the connection between my later post and the Wiki posts. You don't see the connections ... period ... because you have already made your mind up and nothing will change it. You didn't come here to learn or seek answers to questions. You came here to denounce science in a topic of which you are poorly informed. Just be honest and state what you believe. All this crap about "proof" is just you showing how much you don't understand about how evolution works. Proof would only work for you if you were able to understand it and your mind is slammed shut tightly. Metalwing, there is no "proof." Just admit it. Its a "theory." All of your claims that no one "understands" how evolution works appears to be a distraction. Evolution is still a theory. If there was proof, then it would be called a fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay so now how about the statement that mating is "random." If mating is simply "random" then we should all have mates. (We don't need mingle, all we need to do is go into a shopping mall and find a member of the opposite sex and randomly pair up.) Mating is not simply random. In fact, like attracts like. Mating is not completely random, but mating most definitely has a random component to it. For the purposes of the biologist, looking at the evolution of an entire species, treating mating as 'random' works as a simplifying assumption. If mating is completely random, evolution works. If mating is not completely random, just mostly random, evolution still works. If mate selection is strongly influenced by cultural factors, evolution still works. Well evolution, is still not called "fact." It is still called "theory." And while I believe that evolution within a species clearly does happen, can anyone identify a particular species that has changed over to another species? The "evidence" for evolution just appears to be indications and clues. But is there proof? If there was, then what they call "theory" would be called "fact." since man has not been around for the millions of years to see the change, it would hard to say someone has actually "seen the change", or found the missing link. change would be so gradual we cannot see it as you seem to think we could. we still have a DNA strand that would make humans to grow tails, and some humans are born with small tails. if the majority of humans that have these tails would mate with each other, then gradually humans would start having longer and bigger tails. and in a few million years, humans with tails would be the norm. Thats another reason why people do what they call "selective breeding" with animals, to get the traits they want most in animals. some pics of humans with tails here... http://www.realitylove.eu/Eye-Openers/tails_in_humans.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! You really struggle hard to twist facts. Let me explain it to you in slightly simpler terms. The telomere (which you admitted you know nothing about) keeps the ends of DNA from unraveling. The posts you misinterpret describe how, through inter specie breeding match uneven numbers of chromosomes and the TELOMERE was used to attach the new unmatched chromosomes into a new longer chromosomes (two into one) using the TELOMERE as the binding agent and absolute proof of chromosome lengthening. The TELOMERE is then left intact in the middle of the strand showing what happened and how it happened i.e., DNA lengthening. Where telomeres exist inside a DNA strand they no longer provide the function of keeping the ends of DNA from unraveling but they now act as the glue that holds the two former strands together. Newsflash. The discussion on polymorphism explains (to those who can understand it) the mechanism where combined strands of DNA have the ability to use the duplicate genes as mutation options (since they are duplicates they are redundant) and allow the chromosome to acquire different genes. On page 18 you have two long quotes from Wikipedia concerning the subject of polymorphism. Neither quote mentioned anything like your description above, except for the one word "polyploidy" in the middle of your first wikipedia quote. This is the only time the Wikipedia articles mentioned a DNA lengthening process, of chromosone duplication, but it does not mention it in the manner you have described above, no mention is made of telomeres in that quote concerning polyploidy. Then the other post by you mentions telomeres, but in the context of a split chromosone, not an increased or duplicated chromosone. But referring to your explanation above, I have always agreed that DNA can lengthen through mutation, I just haven't yet seen it lengthen in a beneficial manner, in such a way that we could see how evolution could create the fully functional 32000 genes of the human genome. Sure the human genome carries a lot of useless "junk DNA" but what process made it get so FUNCTIONALLY long? You will never see it. You don't see the connection between my later post and the Wiki posts. You don't see the connections ... period ... because you have already made your mind up and nothing will change it. You didn't come here to learn or seek answers to questions. You came here to denounce science in a topic of which you are poorly informed. Just be honest and state what you believe. All this crap about "proof" is just you showing how much you don't understand about how evolution works. Proof would only work for you if you were able to understand it and your mind is slammed shut tightly. Metalwing, there is no "proof." Just admit it. Its a "theory." All of your claims that no one "understands" how evolution works appears to be a distraction. Evolution is still a theory. If there was proof, then it would be called a fact. As usual, I didn't say that. “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metalwing, there is no "proof." Just admit it. Its a "theory." All of your claims that no one "understands" how evolution works appears to be a distraction. Evolution is still a theory. If there was proof, then it would be called a fact. /sigh... In science, a theory is almost as good as fact (which would be called a law). It means that there is a hypothesis that is supported by a lot of evidence. The problem isn't that there is no proof for the theory of evolution, the problem is that the evidence for the theory of evolution equally supports Creationism. Where evolution sees ancestor species, Creationism sees similar species that died out in the flood or for some other reason. There is no conclusive proof that evolution happened, unless you eliminate the possibility of Creationism first. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metalwing, there is no "proof." Just admit it. Its a "theory." All of your claims that no one "understands" how evolution works appears to be a distraction. Evolution is still a theory. If there was proof, then it would be called a fact. /sigh... In science, a theory is almost as good as fact (which would be called a law). It means that there is a hypothesis that is supported by a lot of evidence. The problem isn't that there is no proof for the theory of evolution, the problem is that the evidence for the theory of evolution equally supports Creationism. Where evolution sees ancestor species, Creationism sees similar species that died out in the flood or for some other reason. There is no conclusive proof that evolution happened, unless you eliminate the possibility of Creationism first. There needs not be any conflict between Creationism and Evolution. Creation happened. Whether or not it was "directed" is a matter of debate. Evolution is just how we turned out after creation. The science of the laws that got us here are part of creation too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metalwing, there is no "proof." Just admit it. Its a "theory." All of your claims that no one "understands" how evolution works appears to be a distraction. Evolution is still a theory. If there was proof, then it would be called a fact. /sigh... In science, a theory is almost as good as fact (which would be called a law). It means that there is a hypothesis that is supported by a lot of evidence. The problem isn't that there is no proof for the theory of evolution, the problem is that the evidence for the theory of evolution equally supports Creationism. Where evolution sees ancestor species, Creationism sees similar species that died out in the flood or for some other reason. There is no conclusive proof that evolution happened, unless you eliminate the possibility of Creationism first. Almost as good as fact is not good enough. A theory is something that has a lot of evidence that points to a possibility that a lot of people agree on. Just like a lot of evidence could convict an innocent man of a crime if the jury believes it. I have no opinion on Creationism nor am I familiar with any specific Creationism "theory." I don't think one needs to say that life was "created." Perhaps it was simply "born." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well perhaps that is evidence that an advanced race of alien beings came to the earth and took the primitive humans living here and souped up their genes with some of their own to make primitive earthlings smarter and help them a bit with their "evolution." Hence the legends of the Gods and the Adam and Eve project. And the reptilian race of redheads with high IQ? |
|
|
|
|
