Evolution

[VideoJinx]

Everything has a beginning. I simply don't believe that everything just was and is. That doesn't make any sense.

In my beliefs Life is infinite, and to suggest that it had a beginning would be to suggest it has an end.

 

[Spunky]

In my beliefs Life is infinite, and to suggest that it has a beginning would be to suggest it has an end.

Yeah, so? Of course life as we know it has an end at some point. That isn't so difficult for me to believe.

 

[VideoJinx]

Are you referring to yourself as your body, and saying when your body dies your essence dies too?

 

[Spunky]

...Are you saying otherwise?

 

[Prozac]

Oke, stop right there.
This isn't leading to anything.

Delta you know were VideoJinx is going with this, it are his believes and you should respect them.
If you both continue posting like this, we'll be flaming in no time!

If I recall correctly.. when researching for an essay I remember reading about how nearly all "mutations" within a body cause a "self harming" or "disfunctional" result. If, a mutation just so happens to NOT fall under those categories, which is HIGHLY rare according to my memory, it's effect over all in the so called "Evolutionary Theory" would be so insignificant that it would have no real effect.

you've got a point here, when mutation is bad we call it mutation, when mutation causes a good change it's suddenly evolution.
I really see were you're going here, but I'd also like to point out that previously said positive mutation does happen.
How else would you explain opposable thumbs ( we are so freaky! )

Anyway, it shouldn't be hard to understand that certain things that CAN cause negative effects, at the same time CAN cause plosive effects.
Yes I agree with you that it goes wrong alot, we see that all around us, especially since natural selection with humans doesn't occur anymore.
But every now and then, positive mutation does occur, and with every now and then I mean like one little thing every 10.000 years orso

One thing though, I'm afraid to tell you that our physical selfs won't be able to go infinitaly as our planet will sooner or later die/burn up/be pelted with meteors ( Which ever comes first )
meaning there will be no place for our "essence" to go.

Then again, who knows, maybe we'll see a modern arch of noah thing happen, you know with spaceships and stuff!

 

[Spunky]

Uhh just one thing. I never said that. >_>

Misquote ftl.

 

[kam!]

Here's my take on the faith* of Darwinism in 3 words.

It's B S. Especially Macro Evolution.

It completely relies on the belief* that through "random" mutations within our body we'll eventually have many "positive" mutations causing a being/creature to better adapt in its' environment. This is so unlikely that I consider it "not worth believing in".

Look at the frame. We're no talking about that in 20 years there will be a new species.
Terrestial life developed in the last 400 million years. The modern human appeared within the last 80000 years.
You are right, odds that a random mutation is beneficial are small.
Over 50% of the mutations are silent anyway, meaning they don't change anything unless
that DNA region mutates again. Unbeneficial mutations are sorted out through natural selection.

If I recall correctly.. when researching for an essay I remember reading about how nearly all "mutations" within a body cause a "self harming" or "disfunctional" result. If, a mutation just so happens to NOT fall under those categories, which is HIGHLY rare according to my memory, it's effect over all in the so called "Evolutionary Theory" would be so insignificant that it would have no real effect.

Again evolution is incredibly slow. It's not mutation->pop new leg (I'll come to that later again).
Changes are really small, and take a long time to spread within a population (only if they are beneficial).
And mutation is not the only way species can change. A sudden change in the enviroment
can make large portions of a poulation die, while others survive because of some traits that weren't
remarkable before.

Example: If a rabbity were to mutate and grow a 3rd leg bone, in order for that leg bone to be of any benefit there would also have to be ASSISTNG mutations which are equally just as rare to occur. When i say assisting mutations, I'm refering to other REQUIRED mutated genes need for the bone mutation to be functional. This includes, other mutated genes that will decide WHERE the bones goes, WHERE the muscles FOR that new bone will develop, How the nerves are setup, where the skin tissue develops, How thick the bone is. ect ect ect.. The odds are so unlikely.... If you don't have the supporting genes to assist that gene then, what you have now is a mutation that has malfunctioned.

Evolution doesn't work that way. There isn't a gene that codes for the bone in your leg, and one for the muscles etc.
Massive mutations will never lead to evolutionary processes. Huge genetic changes cause
that the individual isn't able to reproduce with the original species anymore.
Evolution (mirco or macro, doesn't matter) takes ****loads of time, because the steps are tiny.

Despite all that, what I findto be the most ludicris claim of evolution itself.... is the claim of Life coming from "non-life".

Ever thought about what's so special about life (in the biological sense)?
Cells are in essence just confined spaces where certain chemical reactions occur all the time.
I think scientist will soon be able to create synthetic cells,

 

[VideoJinx]

Kam, I've shown you my example of it... and It's the same as what really happens according to the "Theory of evolution", it's just not as Scientific sounding.

Also, "Synthetic Cells" these are something im definately NOT so excited about.


Synthetic:
-Chemistry Produced by synthesis, especially not of natural origin.
-Prepared or made artificially.

Here in a nutshell is the raw material used to produce synthetic nutrients:

Vitamin A/Betacarotene: Methanol, benzene, petroleum esters; acetylene, refined
oils

Vitamin B-1: Coal tar derivatives, hydrocholric acid; acetonitrole with ammonia

Vitamin B-2: produced with 2N acetic acid

Vitamin B-3: Coal tar derviatives, 3-cyanopyridine; ammonia and acid

Vitamin B-5: condensing isobutyraldehyde with formaldehyde

Vitamin B-6: petroleum ester and hydrochloric acid with formaldehyde

Vitamin B-12: Cobalamins reacted with cyanide

Vitamin C: Hydrogenated sugar (generally a corn source) processed with acetone

Vitamin D: Irridiated animal fat/cattle brains or solvently extracted

Vitamin E: Trimethylhydroquinone with isophytol; refined oils

Vitamin K: Coal tar derivative; produced with p-allelic nickle

One Source of Reasons:
http://forum.esforces.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=900646



In my belief, synthetic cells won't bring nearly as much "goodness" as thought or intended by many, but instead something much worse(DNA corruption).

Cells are in essence just confined spaces where certain chemical reactions occur all the time.

In my belief, real cells are MUCH more and highly capable of many things people don't give them credit for. Also, genetic manipulation is amongst scientific goals which I'm also against because I see no need for it.

 

[SailorAlea]

Here's my take on the faith* of Darwinism in 3 words.

It's B S. Especially Macro Evolution.

It completely relies on the belief* that through "random" mutations within our body we'll eventually have many "positive" mutations causing a being/creature to better adapt in its' environment. This is so unlikely that I consider it "not worth believing in".

Evolution is not based on faith, or belief unsupported by fact--it's based on empirical observation. Empirical:

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

Evolution is not "unlikely." It's been proven--observable--in controlled lab experiments the University of Rochestor conducted involving fruit flies. (http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=48)

This is in addition to overwhelming evidence in both fossil records and DNA.

If I recall correctly.. when researching for an essay I remember reading about how nearly all "mutations" within a body cause a "self harming" or "disfunctional" result. If, a mutation just so happens to NOT fall under those categories, which is HIGHLY rare according to my memory, it's effect over all in the so called "Evolutionary Theory" would be so insignificant that it would have no real effect.

Wrong again. The vast majority of mutations are harmless. Harmful mutations are much rarer and seriously harmful ones result in the life form not maturing (dying in the womb, etc.) Or a harmful mutation would be weeded out by natural selection because they're at a disadvantage in their environment.

Example: If a rabbity were to mutate and grow a 3rd leg bone, in order for that leg bone to be of any benefit there would also have to be ASSISTNG mutations which are equally just as rare to occur. When i say assisting mutations, I'm refering to other REQUIRED mutated genes need for the bone mutation to be functional. This includes, other mutated genes that will decide WHERE the bones goes, WHERE the muscles FOR that new bone will develop, How the nerves are setup, where the skin tissue develops, How thick the bone is. ect ect ect.. The odds are so unlikely.... If you don't have the supporting genes to assist that gene then, what you have now is a mutation that has malfunctioned.

You're making two fallacious errors. The first one is general ignorance on the issue. People are born with extra limbs, toes, etc. Not just with an extra bone sticking out with no flesh. They're mutations; and they're well documented fact.

The second fallacious argument you're making isirreducible complexity. As you love saying, GET INFORMED.

Supporters of intelligent design use this term to refer to biological systems and organs that they believe could not have come about by any series of small changes. They argue that anything less than the complete form of such a system or organ would not work at all, or would in fact be a detriment to the organism, and would therefore never survive the process of natural selection. Although they accept that some complex systems and organs can be explained by evolution, they claim that organs and biological features which are irreducibly complex cannot be explained by current models, and that an intelligent designer must have created life or guided its evolution.

In The Origin of Species, he wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

Despite all that, what I findto be the most ludicris claim of evolution itself.... is the claim of Life coming from "non-life".

Yet another fallacy. Evolution is not a theory of abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life..

 

[Chakra-X]

Here's my take on the faith* of Darwinism in 3 words.

It's B S. Especially Macro Evolution.

It completely relies on the belief* that through "random" mutations within our body we'll eventually have many "positive" mutations causing a being/creature to better adapt in its' environment. This is so unlikely that I consider it "not worth believing in".

It's not a "belief" or "faith", it's a theory. And also a fact, depending on the context. People aren't just randomly following some doctrine saying "Look! Evolution! BELIEVE!". Countless studies have supported evolution.

Macro evolution has more holes, but to denounce the entire idea of evolution as "BS" and "so unlikely that it is not worth believing in", while believing outrageous and unproven claims of shadow governments, lizard people, and Jupiterians is almost ironic.

 

[VideoJinx]

I took a look at that article, and my first thoughts were "they must be struggling to find something, because nobody else I've heard from has ever seen evolution occur in fruit flies."


Then, I spotted this.... and continued reading, before I came back to it.

He then needed to find a gene in one of those regions that was responsible for preventing successful reproduction between the two species. If the species could reproduce, then they could swap genes back and forth and thus would not be truly separate species. Something would have to prevent the transfer of genes, and in the case of Presgraves' fruit flies, that something was the proclivity for hybrid larvae to die before maturing into adults.

I doubt i'm interpeting this incorrectly, but hereis what I got.

THE SPECIES OF FLIES ARE DIFFERENT, not because they "Cant mate" but because this particular group of flies have the trait of dieing too soon to mate."

Iono, but to me that sounds like a malfunction and not evolution.



As for your other comments I wont nit pick at them too much, because I know this will end up as another 10 page thread...

I just wanna point this out..

If I recall correctly.. when researching for an essay I remember reading about how nearly all "mutations" within a body cause a "self harming" or "disfunctional" result. If, a mutation just so happens to NOT fall under those categories, which is HIGHLY rare according to my memory, it's effect over all in the so called "Evolutionary Theory" would be so insignificant that it would have no real effect.

you replied:

Wrong again. The vast majority of mutations are harmless. Harmful mutations are much rarer and seriously harmful ones result in the life form not maturing (dying in the womb, etc.) Or a harmful mutation would be weeded out by natural selection because they're at a disadvantage in their environment.

There was nothing "wrong" about what I said, infact your statements only agree with what I said. The point I was making is that a positive mutation is Highly rare.

And about the 6 finger thing... let me also restate that

I've shown you my example of it...

In other words this is a basicly put description/concept tohelp understand how rare the possibility is for a positive mutation to occur.
---------------------------
My beliefs..

When you believe in evolution, you disvalue life at the same time.. because your saying not only does life come from "non-life", but also that life "exists" only by "chance/luck". Basicly put, your here no "No reason at all" your existance is simply a fluke, and when you die it truly won't matter.

Those are evolutionist beliefs which i strongly disagree on. Along with the scientific explanations that clearly show "UNPROVEN" "UNFACTUAL" claims/beliefs of evolution.
Life has a purpose, we dont exists for "no reason" as Evolution would have you believe. Each life has its value, as evolution would have you not believe because you exist only by chance anyway. When you die it wont matter according to evolution.

 

[SailorAlea]

I took a look at that article, and my first thoughts were "they must be struggling to find something, because nobody else I've heard from has ever seen evolution occur in fruit flies."

This statement doesn't say anything. So you haven't personally seen fruit flies evolve. That's nice, I suppose? I don't imagine most people know what fruit flies look like, much less have observed their breeding tendencies.

THE SPECIES OF FLIES ARE DIFFERENT, not because they "Cant mate" but because this particular group of flies have the trait of dieing too soon to mate."

Iono, but to me that sounds like a malfunction and not evolution.

That's the point. They were trying to discover why identify what made the one, pre-existing species branch out into two, incompatible species that couldn't mate.

Just like you can't mate with gorillas, and a cheetah can't mate with a housecat. They're separate species, and interspecies breeding is very rarely successful.

The point was:

The second groundbreaking result of the study is that Presgraves looked at the DNA of Nup 96 and worked to determine whether these two species simply drifted apart, or whether evolution forcefully took them down their separate paths.

Natural selection, Darwin's hypothesized tool to explain the development of complexity in species, appeared to have been responsible in moving the species further apart, Presgraves found.

The difference between species, however, would show if any of the new randomly acquired traits were useful enough to be "selected for," and passed on to successive generations. While natural selection appeared to evidently play a major role in the development of Nup 96, Presgraves plans to investigate the other 20 or so genes that keep the two species separate, in order to have a full genetic picture of the species' divergence.

There was nothing "wrong" about what I said, infact your statements only agree with what I said. The point I was making is that a positive mutation is Highly rare.

No. Your statement was wrong. You said, I quote:

If I recall correctly.. when researching for an essay I remember reading about how nearly all "mutations" within a body cause a "self harming" or "disfunctional" result

This is wrong. The statement that "most mutations in the body cause a self-harming or dysfunctional result." That is wrong. Most mutations are not harmful. They are harmless.

When you believe in evolution, you disvalue life at the same time.. because your saying not only does life come from "non-life", but also that life "exists" only by "chance/luck". Basicly put, your here no "No reason at all" your existance is simply a fluke, and when you die it truly won't matter.

Those are evolutionist beliefs which i strongly disagree on.

I told you. Evolution is not a theory of abiogenesis, or the origin of life. "GET INFORMED." Read the enormous link. It is unrelated to evolution.

Along with the scientific explanations that clearly show "UNPROVEN" "UNFACTUAL" claims/beliefs of evolution.
Life has a purpose, we dont exists for "no reason" as Evolution would have you believe. Each life has its value, as evolution would have you not believe because you exist only by chance anyway. When you die it wont matter according to evolution.

Evolution is a model of predictions based on factual observations. Those predictions have far and away been accurate.

Evolution is often said to be both theory and fact. This statement, or something similar, is frequently seen in biological literature.[1][2][3][4][5][6][4][7][4][8][9][10]]

Evolution is one of the most factual, most researched and well-supported scientific theories. This is a completely different level of factual basis for opinions, unlike the other so-called controversies you've brought up before, like fluoride.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

Read this entire article. If you still have objections, then bring them back. Evolution is not an unsupported "belief" or "faith." It's based on factual (empirical) observation, and the predictions that come out of it have proven true in both our archeological research and in the laboratory.

 

[kam!]

I doubt i'm interpeting this incorrectly, but hereis what I got.

THE SPECIES OF FLIES ARE DIFFERENT, not because they "Cant mate" but because this particular group of flies have the trait of dieing too soon to mate."

Iono, but to me that sounds like a malfunction and not evolution.

The thing you get wrong there is that hybrid fruit flies die prematurely.
This means that 2 seperate species have formed. The two fruit fly groups form normal offspring within their species.


Edit: And what you think about "evolutionist beliefs" is just wrong. Evolution states how different species arise,
not how/why life in general exists.

 

[VideoJinx]

Yet.. I've yet to see it be proven...


and as for the statement.. "harmless" falls under the category of a disfunctional mutation...

as in the mutation happens but there is NO effect because it's disfunctional/malfunctional..


There is no point in arguing that Evolution isn't a fact... no matter how many times its "Said" to be fact by anyone, I've yet to see the "Fact of Evolution" only the "Theory of Evolution".

The whole fact and theory bs is a technical word twisting squable.... to persuade people into believing evolution.

No matter how you look at this.

Fact is NOT a synonym to Theory... in fact... it IS a antonym.

Synonyms: assessment, assumption, attitude, conception, conclusion, conjecture, estimate, estimation, eye*, fancy, feeling, guess, hypothesis, idea, imagining, impression, inclination, inference, judgment, mind, notion, persuasion, postulate, presumption, presupposition, reaction, say so, sentiment, slant, speculation, supposition, surmise, suspicion, take*, theorem, theory, thesis, think*, thought, view, viewpoint

Antonyms for Theory: fact, proof, reality

In other words, I'm calling the whole "Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
" mumbo jumbo ... straight B S..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As about your comment on the flies.. I don't believe i looked over what i see as the largest uncertainty within the paper..

Researchers at the University of Rochester have produced compelling evidence of how the hand of natural selection caused one species of fruit fly to split into two more than 2 million years ago. The study, appearing in today's issue of Nature, answers one of evolutionary biologists' most basic questions--how do species divide--by looking at the very DNA responsible for the division. Understanding why certain genes evolve the way they do during speciation can shed light on some of the least understood aspects of evolution.

Presgraves and colleagues found 20 regions that differed on the chromosomes of two species of fruit flies that were estimated to have diverged in evolution 2.5 million years ago--fairly recently in evolutionary terms.

That's not NEARLY "compelling" enough for me. :laff:....They "Assume" that the two* species were once one species and they wonder why the two can't breed? While at the same time declaring they evolved and split apart..
-------------------------------------------------------------------

@ Kam: Evolution states that life comes from none-life, the explanation it provides instantly says were here by chance thus bring the other things i said automaticly.....unless u can show me otherwise i reall cant see how they dont go together..

let me just clarify that believing in Evolution or to be an evolutionist is to believe in ALL evolutionist ideas. If you believe in the process of evolution and creationism you aren't an evolutionist

 

[SailorAlea]

Yet.. I've yet to see it be proven...


and as for the statement.. "harmless" falls under the category of a disfunctional mutation...

as in the mutation happens but there is NO effect because it's disfunctional/malfunctional..


There is no point in arguing that Evolution isn't a fact... no matter how many times its "Said" to be fact by anyone, I've yet to see the "Fact of Evolution" only the "Theory of Evolution".

The whole fact and theory bs is a technical word twisting squable.... to persuade people into believing evolution.

No matter how you look at this.

Fact is NOT a synonym to Theory... in fact... it IS a antonym.





In other words, I'm calling the whole "Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
" mumbo jumbo ... straight B S..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As about your comment on the flies.. I don't believe i looked over what i see as the largest uncertainty within the paper..





That's not NEARLY "compelling" enough for me. :laff:....They "Assume" that the two* species were once one species and they wonder why the two can't breed? While at the same time declaring they evolved and split apart..
-------------------------------------------------------------------

@ Kam: Evolution states that life comes from none-life, the explanation it provides instantly says were here by chance thus bring the other things i said automaticly.....unless u can show me otherwise i reall cant see how they dont go together..

let me just clarify that believing in Evolution or to be an evolutionist is to believe in ALL evolutionist ideas. If you believe in the process of evolution and creationism you aren't an evolutionist

I'm sorry, but your entire post is based on your ignorance of scientific terminology.

Critics also state that evolution is not a fact. In science, a fact is a verified empirical observation; in colloquial contexts, however, a fact can simply refer to anything for which there is overwhelming evidence. For example, in common usage theories such as "the Earth revolves around the Sun" and "objects fall due to gravity" may be referred to as "facts", even though they are purely theoretical. From a scientific standpoint, therefore, the theory of evolution may be called a "fact" for the same reason that gravity can: under the technical definition, this applies to the observed process of evolution occurring whenever a population of organisms genetically changes over time, whereas under the colloquial definition, this applies to evolutionary theory's well-established nature. Thus, evolution is widely considered both a theory and a fact by scientists.[17][18][19]

Similar confusion is involved in objections that evolution is "unproven";[20] strict proof is possible only in logic and mathematics, not science, so this is trivially true, and no more an indictment of evolution than calling it a "theory" is. The confusion arises, however, in that the colloquial meaning of proof is simply "compelling evidence", in which case scientists would indeed consider evolution "proven". The distinction is an important one in philosophy of science, as it relates to the lack of absolute certainty in all empirical claims, not just evolution.[21]

Evolutionary processes, in the form of populations changing their genetic composition from generation to generation, have been observed in many different scientific contexts, including the evolution of fruit flies and bacteria in laboratory settings, and of tilapia in the field.

In response to such examples, many creationists specify that they are objecting only to macroevolution, not microevolution.

Read.

 

[VideoJinx]

Rightz... welp I'm not so interested in the word games:tired:....and multiple perspectives... like up can be down and down can be up:S.... So I'm going to go enjoy my anime but I'm glad I could put up my perspective here...

 

[kam!]

@Jinx
First you should really look up what the term theory means in science...


Then again, evolution does not state that life formed out of non life.
You can, in fact be a creationist and an "evolutionist" in that the diversity of species is
caused by evolution, and the very first organism was created by god.
Thinking that evolution is right also doesn't strip you of any value. For me it's the very opposite.
Natural selection pics the best of one species to proceed in life. Considering that humans are regarded
as the pinnacle of evolution, isn't it awesome to be part of a species that was formed by an process that only chooses the best adapted to survive?


Yout whole harmless mutation=disfunctional mutation is pretty much word twisting.
Harmless means it causes no harm. Which is just contrary to what you stated about mutations almost always being harmful.
It still doesn't say all mutations are beneficial, but some things seem useless until conditions change.

Why is it so hard to believe that many small changes can cause a bigger change over the course of millions of years?
In all of your "poisen" threads you kept rambling about how tiny little doses of (in large doses) harmful
substances can cause damage over extended periods of time.
If you think that's possible, that's the way evolution works. Many small seemingly insifignant changes
cause a bigger change in the long run.
You can't reach the top of a building if you try to jump, but you will reach it if you take the stairs.

 

[Chakra-X]

let me just clarify that believing in Evolution or to be an evolutionist is to believe in ALL evolutionist ideas. If you believe in the process of evolution and creationism you aren't an evolutionist

That's like saying ALL Christians think ***s will go to hell, or ALL Muslims want to destroy western civilization. You're being very myopic about this, despite your value of "open mindedness".

Rightz... welp I'm not so interested in the word games....and multiple perspectives... like up can be down and down can be up.... So I'm going to go enjoy my anime but I'm glad I could put up my perspective here...

You're making the word games. You are distorting what we're/the articles are trying to say.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

The very first paragraph defines the difference between "fact" of Evolution and "theory" of evolution.

I can guarantee you. A theory based on countless experiments and studies has more merit than skeptical, obscure "hollow earth" theories.

 

[Hibiki]

Evolution is an absolute indisputable scientific fact.


You cannot say things do not and can not evolve because we can see that they do.

The problem becomes when you ask how far can things evolve. And in general the main problem with this topic is that you really have to study science for a long time to truly understand the concept behind evolution. Everyone on both sides are saying a lot of things that aren't really 100% true. But the general concept is impossible to refute. Evolution occurs on many many undeniable levels.

The aids virus is uncurable right now because it constantly evolves from one generation to the next. Bacteria adapt future generations to be resistant to anti-biotics. Plants evolve to make better use of the nutrients around them. The cells of a human evolve depending on the situation. Humans are one of the most adaptive creatures on the planet when it comes to survivability of future generations. These things all happen whether you choose to believe we evolve from single celled organisms or not. Theres nothing mystical or magical or religious about evolution. It's just another part of how nature works and in the end it doesn't ask whether or not you believe in it or not.

Somewhere along the line it stops being about whether or not the science is right and becomes about if the person saying it is right. Science shouldn't be about opinions or feelings. It's always been about what the facts tell us and show us. If you want to ignore the facts and say other wise then you aren't arguing science. You start arguing opinion.

And in this topic theres far too much opinion and not enough facts.

 

[VideoJinx]

Here is a good video for those willing to learn =o..

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UvuRwFi_iqQ&feature=related