Moontanman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 hay i will read about polyploidy then. also i have been posting here for less than 24 hrs and my profile has already been "thumbed" down or something (lol?) this is what questioning evolution does.... also with c14 dating i am going to email a lab and ask this-if i have what i think is a dinosaur bone will you c14 date it for me ( i dont really have one but id like to know), i would like to hear what there answer is and if it is "no" i would like to know why ( i loosely understand they have that predesignated position in the strata or fossil record or whatever so they already "know" the date they are aiming for kind of thing?) i dont see how/why they would say yes because if it did have c14 in it....well...can someone guess the implications this has? One more time, Carbon 14 has nothing what so ever to do with dating dinosaur bones... also to the person posting after my posts/voting down my profile or whatever i was indoctrinated into the public school system just like you (evolution/big bang/ etc) but am just starting to question this now...so please let me question and dont delete me or whatever..lol science (real science) =questions Get used to it... if you have the evidence then march on, but in your case I'd get used to it... "As to, what I assume is, neo-Darwinian Theory (n-d-t) being bankrupt of scientific evidence; do you agree that there is competition among, as well as within, species? " hmm i dont understand by what you mean competition? if you mean nature "selects" if you will what survives, this i agree (obv) but darwins "evolution via natural selection"..well..im starting to disagree with the "evolution" part of that...(as is obv obv lol) "I showed a few ways in which evolution could be disproved, none of these things have happened. Not only that, nothing has been shown to disprove evolution. On the contrary every bit of evidence supports what is expected with the evolutionary model." so has novel/functional genetic information been observed to arrive from one generation to the next? this is what im after? ( i guess you may have already cited some and i will start reading about that now) ok thanks for your time how about figuring out the evidently very complex system here at Scienceforums... use the quote system. on the hope that your public school system has taught you to understand an audio/visual type learning experience... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Yeah "justlostthegame" why don't you do that? Another good one for you sammy7... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 18, 2012 Author Share Posted May 18, 2012 no offence moontana this is the exact kind of crap they spoon feed us in school, any one can believe it (and i did l) im starting to realise the whole thing is a mirage ie geologic cloumn or whatever used to date "index" fossils which they themselves are used to date the geologic column, so before they even radiometric date something they know the range their aiming for "if the dating fits our model we publish it, if it doesnt we dont publish it, and if its way off we chuck it" so.... The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. stephen j gould. someguy wrote to the author of a book called "evolution" he wrote for the british museum or something i think asking "why no transition fossils in your book?"- I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it… Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils… It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. theres about a bazillion of these quotes everywhere the whole thing is based on imagination (no offense)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 no offence moontana this is the exact kind of crap they spoon feed us in school, any one can believe it (and i did l) im starting to realise the whole thing is a mirage ie geologic cloumn or whatever used to date "index" fossils which they themselves are used to date the geologic column, so before they even radiometric date something they know the range their aiming for "if the dating fits our model we publish it, if it doesnt we dont publish it, and if its way off we chuck it" so.... I'm speechless, oh you are so correct... I am sure these assertions are every bit as honest as the next one... The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. stephen j gould. someguy wrote to the author of a book called "evolution" he wrote for the british museum or something i think asking "why no transition fossils in your book?"- Have you heard of the 9th commandment? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it… Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils… It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. Could you possibly be more dishonest? theres about a bazillion of these quotes everywhere the whole thing is based on imagination (no offense)... Yes, quote mining, typical creationist tactic, lie by putting a mans own "edited for content" words in his mouth... Absolute dishonesty... sammy, if you are going to argue for creationism, or the idea of a young earth i suggest you watch this and make a list of lies that have already been told... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 18, 2012 Author Share Posted May 18, 2012 hay that pic on the start of the vid, i think its java man or nebraska man or something right? lmao they found a tooth and someone (with a good imagination) draw up those pics...then they later found it was a pigs tooth..oops anyway i will not be responding to your posts anymore im only interested in science not ones personal attempt to undermine someone elses religion (i have to assume that a bunch of those youtube guys well...thats what they are interested in) so yeah... thanks for reading my posts etc etc lol -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 hay that pic on the start of the vid, i think its java man or nebraska man or something right? lmao they found a tooth and someone (with a good imagination) draw up those pics...then they later found it was a pigs tooth..oops anyway i will not be responding to your posts anymore im only interested in science not ones personal attempt to undermine someone elses religion (i have to assume that a bunch of those youtube guys well...thats what they are interested in) so yeah... thanks for reading my posts etc etc lol Oh i am so wounded.... oh I am so not up with that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeskill Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 hay they were able to replicate this in like 9 days or something so it wasnt through mutations, again nothing novel was added (there was no mutations) somehow the bacteria just adapted to different food sources (like that ecoli experiment) even if by mutations some things do gain the ability to use different food sources its because of a loss of specificity of an enzyme so it starts accepting different substrates..i will not be replying to your posts anymore because of what youve been doing on other threads... Did you know that with every new living individual, be it human, plant, fungi, or bacteria, there are new mutations in the genome? That's because the DNA replication system is imperfect. For example, the enzyme that duplicates DNA would accidentally add an A where a T should be, causing a code that was originally GATTC could to be changed to GATAC. (That would be a point mutation, by the way). This has been well-studied. We know mutations occur because we can, with expensive technology, extract the DNA sequence from a cell, and then we can compare the DNA of ancestors (moms and dads) to their progeny (sons and daughters). The point of this, is that the enzyme that allows Flavobacterium to degrade nylon did actually come about because there was a mutation in the genome that changed the structure of an enzyme. This new nylon-degrading enzyme then allowed the bacteria to eat new stuff that other organisms couldn't, so it was able to reproduce fast on food that no other organism could eat. Hence, why we now see populations of nylon-degrading Flavobacterium. also to the person posting after my posts/voting down my profile or whatever i was indoctrinated into the public school system just like you (evolution/big bang/ etc) but am just starting to question this now...so please let me question and dont delete me or whatever..lol science (real science) =questions You know, proper grammar and spelling go a long way here. It's hard to evaluate someone's arguments when they're difficult to read. (I hope you don't think grammar and spelling are indoctrination too!) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) also with c14 dating i am going to email a lab and ask this-if i have what i think is a dinosaur bone will you c14 date it for me ( i dont really have one but id like to know), i would like to hear what there answer is and if it is "no" i would like to know why ( i loosely understand they have that predesignated position in the strata or fossil record or whatever so they already "know" the date they are aiming for kind of thing?) i dont see how/why they would say yes because if it did have c14 in it....well...can someone guess the implications this has? It won't have any implication other than something with 14C got in the bone. I guess you didn't read the link I gave, it states specifically that the bones themselves can't be dated with isotopes, only the sediments they are found in. also to the person posting after my posts/voting down my profile or whatever i was indoctrinated into the public school system just like you (evolution/big bang/ etc) but am just starting to question this now...so please let me question and dont delete me or whatever..lol science (real science) =questions Yes, and real science = evidence + explanatory power. For evolution there is a huge amount of both. Real science =/= I, personally, don't have enough information, therefore the theory is wrong. hmm i dont understand by what you mean competition? if you mean nature "selects" if you will what survives, this i agree (obv) but darwins "evolution via natural selection"..well..im starting to disagree with the "evolution" part of that...(as is obv obv lol) By competition I mean limited resources being contested for by different organisms. Selection is another example of a different, but related, idea. Please read this: http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/ So you agree that organisms with better traits survive and reproduce better than others? If so: 1.) your statement of n-d-t being bankrupt of evidence is void because you agree there is evidence for part of it 2.) you agree that evolution happens because the traits 'selected' for become more prominent. so has novel/functional genetic information been observed to arrive from one generation to the next? this is what im after? ( i guess you may have already cited some and i will start reading about that now) ok thanks for your time Yes, and I gave you a few examples. If you want a human example of a positive information being added look up the lactase persistence allele. This is the reason, if it's genetic, some people can and some people cannot digest lactose after infancy. If it doesn't have to be human look up the horizontal gene transfer and polyploidy, as I have said before. no offence moontana this is the exact kind of crap they spoon feed us in school, any one can believe it (and i did l) im starting to realise the whole thing is a mirage ie geologic cloumn or whatever used to date "index" fossils which they themselves are used to date the geologic column, so before they even radiometric date something they know the range their aiming for "if the dating fits our model we publish it, if it doesnt we dont publish it, and if its way off we chuck it" so.... I wasn't. Being in the Bible Belt I didn't get taught a real class in evolution until I was in college (my High School Bio teacher didn't believe in evolution). After I had a real class with a professors that knew what they were talking about it made so much more sense, as well as being shown real evidence.<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "> <br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our <br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of <br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">its ancestors; it appears all at once and <br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">fully formed. stephen j gould. The problem is every single fossil, as well as extant species, are transitional. There is no secret that most remains are destroyed before fossilization, after all dinosaurs were the major life form for a very long time and their remains are fairly difficult to find. For evolution to hold water all that would be needed would be a single transitional fossil because it would show evidence that there was transition. Luckily we have much more than just one: http://en.wikipedia....itional_fossils http://www.talkorigi...c/CC/CC200.html <br style="background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "> Punctuated equilibrium does not happen all at once. It happens suddenly in geological time. This time frame may be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. This is many many generations. It also doesn't replace the gradualistic theories, only adds that it is not the only, and may not be the main, way evolution can happen. <br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">someguy wrote to the author of a book called "evolution" he wrote for the british museum or something i think asking "why no transition fossils in your book?"-<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "> And almost all scientists look at the arguments against evolution and ask, "why no evidence for your stance?" <br style="background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, <br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the <br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">information from? I could not, honestly, provide it… Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my <br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional <br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">fossils… It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural <br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. <br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "> See the transitional fossils in my links above, there are plenty. He probably didn't put them in there because he wasn't making a book defending evolution but teaching it. Since it was probably a Biology text there would be no reason to include transitional fossils other than, perhaps, a small note that they exist. Other than that it doesn't add anything important if the book is looking to teach someone how evolution may work. Are you now saying you believe in evolution? That's what your stance on gradualism seems to imply. More to the point, punctuated equilibrium does happen, but it relies, at least in my understanding, to heavily on morphological features. Ring species are a perfect example of morphologically similar, but genetically distinct enough at the ends to be distinct species. This isn't a huge problem and doesn't mean punctuated equilibrium doesn't happen, but graduallism happens as well. I have already said how these can be tested and falsified. Here are some of the predictions evolution has that have been tested: http://www.talkorigi...c/CA/CA210.html theres about a bazillion of these quotes everywhere the whole thing is based on imagination (no offense)... The whole thing is based on evidence, or haven't you been reading my links? I believe you forget that evolution had to fight its way into acceptance in the past 150 years and did so based on merit and evidence. [edit] odd formatting tried to destroy me[/edit] Edited May 18, 2012 by Ringer 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 18, 2012 Author Share Posted May 18, 2012 hay thanks for the reply molecule, i will work my way through those topics, but it seems "transition" fossils suffer in the same way that the telomere-telomere paper does, ie-they assign an unobserved cause in the past (a "transition process") to an observed effect today (we dig up a dead thing). does that make sense? (unless im missing something?) using that same logic i can observe any effect today, (say i look at something in my room) then create a story about it in the past (and state it was unobserved ). how is there anyway of "proving" my story (yes some people can believe it if they want but it was never observed so how do we call this science?) i assume this is where the "prediction" model comes in and if you would be so kind to write it out i would be interested?. ie. no one observed this "transition process" imo they are just dead things that may/may not still be around today (assuming archeoptryx isnt fake which imo it probably is but lets just say it is "real") so saying it is a "transition" fossil, is just a story? (i guess this is where the prediction model comes in again but i will be interested to see it) ie i claim process "x" once started and stopped in the past both without observation, and that effect "a" is the effect of the cause "x". obviously we can observe "a" today but how can we actually go back in time and observe this "x" process? if we cant actually observe claimed cause then this is outside the realm of science and becomes a belief system/religion like every other one (buddhism, etc etc)? thanks molecule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 ^ Name not a name > hay thanks for the reply molecule, i will work my way through those topics, but it seems "transition" fossils suffer in the same way that the telomere-telomere paper does, ie-they assign an unobserved cause in the past (a "transition process") to an observed effect today (we dig up a dead thing). does that make sense? (unless im missing something?) using that same logic i can observe any effect today, (say i look at something in my room) then create a story about it in the past (and state it was unobserved ). how is there anyway of "proving" my story (yes some people can believe it if they want but it was never observed so how do we call this science?) i assume this is where the "prediction" model comes in and if you would be so kind to write it out i would be interested?. ie. no one observed this "transition process" imo they are just dead things that may/may not still be around today (assuming archeoptryx isnt fake which imo it probably is but lets just say it is "real") so saying it is a "transition" fossil, is just a story? (i guess this is where the prediction model comes in again but i will be interested to see it) Please finish an entire though without side comments. You are making it very difficult to read what you are saying. You're missing a lot of things. One is that we have actively observed many evolutionary changes. You are the one saying that just because it isn't directly observed it can't be verified, which evolution has been. Your back story case doesn't hold because once we tell this story we must be able to show that it more than likely happened using molecular, morphological, etc. evidence. Nothing you are saying is what people do when studying evolution, it's just a straw-man made by people who don't understand evolutionary theory. To add to that you are just trying to push a ridiculous burden of proof when you say there are no transitional fossils, I show them to you, and you say since they weren't observed while they were alive it can't be shown to be transitional. If that is the case every creation myth falls just as short as well as all the other failings they have. I gave you a link to predictions made and verified. ie i claim process "x" once started and stopped in the past both without observation, and that effect "a" is the effect of the cause "x". obviously we can observe "a" today but how can we actually go back in time and observe this "x" process? if we cant actually observe claimed cause then this is outside the realm of science and becomes a belief system/religion like every other one (buddhism, etc etc)? thanks molecule Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it is outside the realm of science. Where could you possibly have gotten this idea? I could use your same logic and say that since we couldn't observe light before we were around and it was recorded we can safely assume that light didn't exist until recorded history. Also the fact, that has been stated repeatedly, we have observed these events take place. Read the links I gave and then argue your points because right now it just looks like you don't understand evolutionary processes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 18, 2012 Author Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) im starting with the presupposition no macro-evolutionary changes have been observed -yes no one doubts mutations obv, but lenskis experiments/ecoli/bacteria "gaining" antiobiotic resistance, trisomy 21 etc,- i dont count as the type necessary for the n-d-t theory to be possible, ie lenksis, they found that within only 9 days some of them were able to use/digest nylon , i presume this is to short for a mutation to arise and a new generation to come forth, so it can be explained by a "swapping" of genes with other bacteria that did have the ability to digest nylon/had nylonase, so the information was already present in some of them, it didnt have to "evolve" or gain new functional infromation from anywhere...and if it was a mutation i will propose something for the ecoli experiments below... ecoli experiments-same thing (not saying no mutations were involved) mutation-loss of specificity of an enzyme-enzyme can now accept new substrate(s) (citrate) but i presume it started with a DOWNHILL trend of "information" (the catalytic activity across all the "new" different types of substrates is less than that compared to the wild type on the original substrate), so again this is a loss of information. (or again they just "swapped" genes around that were pre -existing.) bacteria "gaining" resistance, same thing i guess? swapping of genes, mutation changes structure of ribosome, antibiotics cant attach to it, it survives, natural selection kicks in etc etc. but again this starts with a "loss" of information (the ribosome has been degraded a little) this is a downhill trend... also im not here just to "debate" and i think you get that, im putting ideas forward and getting rebutted and thank you for that. "To add to that you are just trying to push a ridiculous burden of proof when you say there are no transitional fossils, I show them to you, and you say since they weren't observed while they were alive it can't be shown to be transitional. If that is the case every creation myth falls just as short as well as all the other failings they have. I gave you a link to predictions made and verified. " hay yes thats what im saying they fail as "scientific evidence" (no im not claiming i have a better model/nor that the bible nor any other religion creation story is "scientific") "Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it is outside the realm of science. Where could you possibly have gotten this idea? I could use your same logic and say that since we couldn't observe light before we were around and it was recorded we can safely assume that light didn't exist until recorded history." no but we cant claim with certainty that just because we observe something acting in a certain way today it has always been acting that way... ie - i see my friend mowing his lawn one day at 3pm, i then claim that every day in the past he has been mowing his lawn at 3pm based on that one observation..science??imo not... thanks for any constructive thoughts again... Edited May 18, 2012 by sammy7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the asinine cretin Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 im starting with the presupposition no macro-evolutionary changes have been observed -yes no one doubts mutations obv, but lenskis experiments/ecoli/bacteria "gaining" antiobiotic resistance, trisomy 21 etc,- i dont count as the type necessary for the n-d-t theory to be possible, ie lenksis, they found that within only 9 days some of them were able to use/digest nylon , i presume this is to short for a mutation to arise and a new generation to come forth, so it can be explained by a "swapping" of genes with other bacteria that did have the ability to digest nylon/had nylonase, so the information was already present in some of them, it didnt have to "evolve" or gain new functional infromation from anywhere...and if it was a mutation i will propose something for the ecoli experiments below... ecoli experiments-same thing (not saying no mutations were involved) mutation-loss of specificity of an enzyme-enzyme can now accept new substrate(s) (citrate) but i presume it started with a DOWNHILL trend of "information" (the catalytic activity across all the "new" different types of substrates is less than that compared to the wild type on the original substrate), so again this is a loss of information. (or again they just "swapped" genes around that were pre -existing.) bacteria "gaining" resistance, same thing i guess? swapping of genes, mutation changes structure of ribosome, antibiotics cant attach to it, it survives, natural selection kicks in etc etc. but again this starts with a "loss" of information (the ribosome has been degraded a little) this is a downhill trend... also im not here just to "debate" and i think you get that, im putting ideas forward and getting rebutted and thank you for that. "To add to that you are just trying to push a ridiculous burden of proof when you say there are no transitional fossils, I show them to you, and you say since they weren't observed while they were alive it can't be shown to be transitional. If that is the case every creation myth falls just as short as well as all the other failings they have. I gave you a link to predictions made and verified. " hay yes thats what im saying they fail as "scientific evidence" (no im not claiming i have a better model/nor that the bible nor any other religion creation story is "scientific") "Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it is outside the realm of science. Where could you possibly have gotten this idea? I could use your same logic and say that since we couldn't observe light before we were around and it was recorded we can safely assume that light didn't exist until recorded history." no but we cant claim with certainty that just because we observe something acting in a certain way today it has always been acting that way... ie - i see my friend mowing his lawn one day at 3pm, i then claim that every day in the past he has been mowing his lawn at 3pm based on that one observation..science??imo not... thanks for any constructive thoughts again... What are you trying to say exactly? Could you clarify? What about sources? I won't bitch if it's Discovery Institute stuff. I'm just curious to fully identify what you're on about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 18, 2012 Author Share Posted May 18, 2012 "What are you trying to say exactly? Could you clarify? What about sources? I won't bitch if it's Discovery Institute stuff. I'm just curious to fully identify what you're on about." Hi thanks for the response. if you want the actual literature for those sources i will have to try to find it (i am having a semi-hard time myself , its easy to find overviews etc) but the mechanism of action of those things referenced above *probably* (i will have to find the actual literature itself) have nothing to do with "evolution" (unless evolution in the context of the overviews=variation/adaptation/mutations, in which case anyone would agree)the use of the word "evolution" even in literature can be very deceptive-just because they use that term doesnt mean macro-evolution (completely new functional/novel genetic information arising somehow which is what lay people reading these overviews might be deceived into thinking imo) they frequently use the word "evolution" in the context of micro=evolution (as described above) so i agree with them in that context (as anyone on the planet would) ok so the mechanism of action of the above listed phenomena (ecoli etc etc)- mutations *may*destroy the specificity of an enzyme allowing it to accept different substrates (so citrate was one thing that was observed) this is not evidence of macro-evolution obv, you cannot gain something new by destroying a little of something a little at a time (which is what n-d-t claims or "evolution via natural selection"). it may not of even have been a mutation ( again i will have to find the literature to nail the exact mechanism of action) because within only 9 days of one of the nylon related bacteria experiment they found it could start using nylon (within only 9 days)so this is unlikely to be a mutation from one generation to the next as it was only 9 days-i cant explain this exatcly but if there was no mutations that means the enzyme present for using nylon were already contained in the organisms and possibly (speculation) something in the environment switched them "on" or something. so here we have 2 things heralded as being "scientific evidence" for evolution (which they are if were referring to micro-evolution lol) so yeah...aslo same with antibiotics-mutation, slight destruction/degradation of something/survives in antibiotic environment again not evidence for n-d-t as it started with a loss or "destruction" of something, again you cannot gain something new by destroying a little of something a little at a time. no i dont read that website you said although i have read stephen c meyers book "signature in the cell" and quite enjoyed it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 hay thanks for the reply molecule, i will work my way through those topics, but it seems "transition" fossils suffer in the same way that the telomere-telomere paper does, ie-they assign an unobserved cause in the past (a "transition process") to an observed effect today (we dig up a dead thing). does that make sense? (unless im missing something?) using that same logic i can observe any effect today, (say i look at something in my room) then create a story about it in the past (and state it was unobserved ). how is there anyway of "proving" my story (yes some people can believe it if they want but it was never observed so how do we call this science?) i assume this is where the "prediction" model comes in and if you would be so kind to write it out i would be interested?. ie. no one observed this "transition process" imo they are just dead things that may/may not still be around today (assuming archeoptryx isnt fake which imo it probably is but lets just say it is "real") so saying it is a "transition" fossil, is just a story? (i guess this is where the prediction model comes in again but i will be interested to see it) No transitional fossils sammy7? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils ie i claim process "x" once started and stopped in the past both without observation, and that effect "a" is the effect of the cause "x". obviously we can observe "a" today but how can we actually go back in time and observe this "x" process? if we cant actually observe claimed cause then this is outside the realm of science and becomes a belief system/religion like every other one (buddhism, etc etc)? thanks molecule So i guess a murder cannot be solved because you didn't see it happen. horse feathers sammy7, you make less and less sense... More on transitional fossils... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.bkgrnd.html and an audio/visual about the lies you've been repeating... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 im starting with the presupposition no macro-evolutionary changes have been observed -yes no one doubts mutations obv, but lenskis experiments/ecoli/bacteria "gaining" antiobiotic resistance, trisomy 21 etc,- i dont count as the type necessary for the n-d-t theory to be possible, ie lenksis, they found that within only 9 days some of them were able to use/digest nylon , i presume this is to short for a mutation to arise and a new generation to come forth, so it can be explained by a "swapping" of genes with other bacteria that did have the ability to digest nylon/had nylonase, so the information was already present in some of them, it didnt have to "evolve" or gain new functional infromation from anywhere...and if it was a mutation i will propose something for the ecoli experiments below... You can't start with a presupposition that isn't factual. Here are some examples of observed macro-evolution: http://evolutionlist...d-evidence.html Not to mention one of my previous posts had a link to evidence of macro-evolution. I will say again, read the links given. If you refuse to do that you are soapboxing which is against the forums rules. 9 days is a few generations for most bacteria. Some of which can have a generation time of about 12 minutes. What genes could have been swapped? Nylon is man made, meaning nothing should have the ability to digest it. Not to mention no other bacteria would be in the sample because, you know, scientists control the conditions of their experiments. ecoli experiments-same thing (not saying no mutations were involved) mutation-loss of specificity of an enzyme-enzyme can now accept new substrate(s) (citrate) but i presume it started with a DOWNHILL trend of "information" (the catalytic activity across all the "new" different types of substrates is less than that compared to the wild type on the original substrate), so again this is a loss of information. (or again they just "swapped" genes around that were pre -existing.) bacteria "gaining" resistance, same thing i guess? swapping of genes, mutation changes structure of ribosome, antibiotics cant attach to it, it survives, natural selection kicks in etc etc. but again this starts with a "loss" of information (the ribosome has been degraded a little) this is a downhill trend... Your statement was that evolution doesn't happen, we showed it does. Now it has to be new information, which I gave examples of. Now you are just ignoring what was said previously. It doesn't matter what you assume, if your assumptions have no evidence to back them up they are worth less than nothing. You also can't say it was a loss of information if you don't have the genetic information to back it up, so please give a source. also im not here just to "debate" and i think you get that, im putting ideas forward and getting rebutted and thank you for that. You said you were here for a reasonable discussion, but so far you are being somewhat unreasonable. We are giving you links to plenty of evidence and you haven't even begun to read them. Is it not reasonable for you to take some time and read those sources that we took the time to find for you? "To add to that you are just trying to push a ridiculous burden of proof when you say there are no transitional fossils, I show them to you, and you say since they weren't observed while they were alive it can't be shown to be transitional. If that is the case every creation myth falls just as short as well as all the other failings they have. I gave you a link to predictions made and verified. " hay yes thats what im saying they fail as "scientific evidence" (no im not claiming i have a better model/nor that the bible nor any other religion creation story is "scientific") They don't fail as scientific evidence, it may be difficult to see how they are used if you are not familiar with the process so I will explain. If evolution doesn't happen all the life we see today as well as fossils lived at the same time. If that is the case we should see modern animals fossilized along side extinct animals OR at least find evidence that there was a coexistance within the ecosystem where they would have lived. The problem is that is not what we find. The fossils I think I already talked about so let's look at the ecosystem problem. As an example look predators of Africa. Predation is a fairly unstable state. Most predators are very territorial because they depend on having other animals as their food source. Now if you look at the carnivorous dinosaurs and modern day predators if they would have existed at the same time most modern predators probably wouldn't have survived. Why? Because the amount of food necessary to feed those dinosaurs would be vary large compared to modern equivalents. The dinos probably would not only eat the modern predators food source, but, depending on which dino, probably wouldn't be all that shy about eating the predators as well. "Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it is outside the realm of science. Where could you possibly have gotten this idea? I could use your same logic and say that since we couldn't observe light before we were around and it was recorded we can safely assume that light didn't exist until recorded history." no but we cant claim with certainty that just because we observe something acting in a certain way today it has always been acting that way... ie - i see my friend mowing his lawn one day at 3pm, i then claim that every day in the past he has been mowing his lawn at 3pm based on that one observation..science??imo not... You're right that's not scientific. You would make that hypothesis then test it. If you can't constantly observe your friend, because that's kinda creepy, you make a lawn just like his and have the same conditions his lawn is under. You then mow it every day at 3pm and see if your lawn is in the same condition as his. Since it wouldn't be you know you were wrong, so you make a different hypothesis, either adding to your original idea or dropping that and starting over, and test that one. You keep testing and testing and testing and testing until you get it. After you get it then other people look at your idea and say, "I wonder where he messed up." So now they do the same thing. If they get your results you are on a bit better ground, if not you may still be wrong. So then more people test. . . I think you get the idea. The testing doesn't stop, that's why science is always progressing as well as why we are so confident in the things that have held up to so many tests. "What are you trying to say exactly? Could you clarify? What about sources? I won't bitch if it's Discovery Institute stuff. I'm just curious to fully identify what you're on about." Hi thanks for the response. if you want the actual literature for those sources i will have to try to find it (i am having a semi-hard time myself , its easy to find overviews etc) but the mechanism of action of those things referenced above *probably* (i will have to find the actual literature itself) have nothing to do with "evolution" (unless evolution in the context of the overviews=variation/adaptation/mutations, in which case anyone would agree)the use of the word "evolution" even in literature can be very deceptive-just because they use that term doesnt mean macro-evolution (completely new functional/novel genetic information arising somehow which is what lay people reading these overviews might be deceived into thinking imo) they frequently use the word "evolution" in the context of micro=evolution (as described above) so i agree with them in that context (as anyone on the planet would) Then link the overviews. The term evolution is not deceptive, it means change in allele frequency over time. Terms such as that are exact, no room for interpretation. Science attempts to be as ubiquitous as possible so there are no misunderstandings. Macro-evolution is a meaningless term for the most part because it is not specific enough. If it means a species going to another species we have a word for that, speciation. Look for exactly what you want, not ambiguous terms. Search for novel genetic mutation or something similar. Look for speciation if you want speciation. ok so the mechanism of action of the above listed phenomena (ecoli etc etc)- mutations *may*destroy the specificity of an enzyme allowing it to accept different substrates (so citrate was one thing that was observed) this is not evidence of macro-evolution obv, you cannot gain something new by destroying a little of something a little at a time (which is what n-d-t claims or "evolution via natural selection"). it may not of even have been a mutation ( again i will have to find the literature to nail the exact mechanism of action) because within only 9 days of one of the nylon related bacteria experiment they found it could start using nylon (within only 9 days)so this is unlikely to be a mutation from one generation to the next as it was only 9 days-i cant explain this exatcly but if there was no mutations that means the enzyme present for using nylon were already contained in the organisms and possibly (speculation) something in the environment switched them "on" or something. so here we have 2 things heralded as being "scientific evidence" for evolution (which they are if were referring to micro-evolution lol) so yeah...aslo same with antibiotics-mutation, slight destruction/degradation of something/survives in antibiotic environment again not evidence for n-d-t as it started with a loss or "destruction" of something, again you cannot gain something new by destroying a little of something a little at a time. no i dont read that website you said although i have read stephen c meyers book "signature in the cell" and quite enjoyed it... I gave you evidence of macro-evolution, read the links and get back to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 18, 2012 Author Share Posted May 18, 2012 definitions-a. science- The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. my emphasis-(OBSERVABLE!) religion-Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. (thefreedictionary.com) just a couple comments then 1-the nylon experiments and the ecoli experiments, if we both havnt seen the genetic literature on it we both cant comment (you can claim its evolution if you want/i can say its not) so this must be put aside till we both see it) just because the overview says "they evolved" well...i wont take their word for it (depends how they define it too) 2-"The term evolution is not deceptive, it means change in allele frequency over time. Terms such as that are exact, no room for interpretation" if that is how evolution is defined...well...then obviously every single person on the planet agrees.... 3-with fossils, no one was around to observe them dying and being fossilised or whatever, thats what im saying-it was never observed, anyone can make up a "story" about something that is claimed to have happened in the past without observation....and thats exactly what it is....a story (not science) yes i know its a fancy story x million years environment ecosystems etc etc , sorry mate its still just a story (see above definition for science) 4- for a genetic mutation to be considered one that gives n-d-t even slight credit we need to see *new* (not just a trait that is brought out under certain conditions/certain environments) "functional" genetic information arising from somewhere within an organisms own self i guess (not horizontal gene transfer (swapping of genes as i mentioned) not loss of specificity of an enzyme (so it accepts new substrates)or gene duplication etc etc. if this has hasnt been observed then n-d-t is a religion like everyother one (some supernatural power gave all these living things "extra" new functional genetic over long periods of time etc etc.) as the onus of proof is on n-d-t (it is the one making the claim to be "scientific fact") please cite just 1 literature right now you feel is the strongest evidence that can support this claim (please link it, those sites hurt my brain as they are full of deceptive/intended to deceive wording imo) just link to the strongest one youve got please (if you only have overviews then its a religion until the actual literature can be provided) just the strongest literature right now. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) Then answer this question, do you believe in atoms? As to your request for literature, I don't see the point in giving you another link when it is very obvious that you haven't even attempted to read the ones I already gave. HGT will give novel functions to a different organism because it may interact differently with the proteins already being produced by the genome. You can also easily get novel functions and information when viral DNA is places in our genome and a frame shift mutation occurs, or any frame shift mutation for that matter. Edited May 19, 2012 by Ringer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the asinine cretin Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 3-with fossils, no one was around to observe them dying and being fossilised or whatever, thats what im saying-it was never observed, anyone can make up a "story" about something that is claimed to have happened in the past without observation....and thats exactly what it is....a story (not science) yes i know its a fancy story x million years environment ecosystems etc etc , sorry mate its still just a story (see above definition for science) Fossils are tangible physical remains of living creatures and yield a great deal of data about organisms and about the history of life. This is real data. Because none of us were around to observe them dying and being fossilized it didn't happen? It's just a pretend story? Get real, pal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 19, 2012 Author Share Posted May 19, 2012 Then answer this question, do you believe in atoms? As to your request for literature, I don't see the point in giving you another link when it is very obvious that you haven't even attempted to read the ones I already gave. HGT will give novel functions to a different organism because it may interact differently with the proteins already being produced by the genome. You can also easily get novel functions and information when viral DNA is places in our genome and a frame shift mutation occurs, or any frame shift mutation for that matter. atoms are OBSERVABLE (we both know that m8) they are here right now today (NOTICE THE WORD OBSERVE NOT LIMITED TO JUST SEEING WITH EYES)) so they are observable..ie-science.... so the official story for macro evolution is...we dont observe it today (richard dawkins and francis collins both say this, im happy to take there word for it) because it both started and stopped happening long ago in the past WITHOUT OBSERVATION..so evolution=religion it is taken by faith that this process once happened (as is creation event of any other religion christianity hindu whatever other ones there are...) once the laymen understands this they realise why they had such a problem with such statements as "evolution is a scientific fact". please ask my anything you want about biblical creation if you want )i dont believe any of the other creation stories i take by faith genesis 1.1. is true (as evolutionists take by faith their "process" once happened) thanks for reading... (n.b. mods yes religion is mentioned in this post but as we know from dawkins and francis collins statements evolution is a religion so.....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the asinine cretin Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) atoms are OBSERVABLE (we both know that m8) they are here right now today (NOTICE THE WORD OBSERVE NOT LIMITED TO JUST SEEING WITH EYES)) so they are observable..ie-science.... so the official story for macro evolution is...we dont observe it today (richard dawkins and francis collins both say this, im happy to take there word for it) because it both started and stopped happening long ago in the past WITHOUT OBSERVATION..so evolution=religion it is taken by faith that this process once happened (as is creation event of any other religion christianity hindu whatever other ones there are...) once the laymen understands this they realise why they had such a problem with such statements as "evolution is a scientific fact". please ask my anything you want about biblical creation if you want )i dont believe any of the other creation stories i take by faith genesis 1.1. is true (as evolutionists take by faith their "process" once happened) thanks for reading... (n.b. mods yes religion is mentioned in this post but as we know from dawkins and francis collins statements evolution is a religion so.....) No. Religious creation myths are based on traditions and sacred texts. Evolution is based on multiple independent lines of physical evidence that corroborate to form a rich and substantial forensic record of the history of life. You can scoop up a text, such as Futuyma's Evolution, for yourself and learn a little something about the facts of evolution. Heck, you could even visit a museum and see examples of the physical evidence for yourself. Religion requires faith in unsubstantiated supernatural doctrines; science does not. Common descent is a demonstrable fact. Genesis 1 is an ancient myth written by primitive people who "weren't there" and did not observe the creation of the universe or of life, et cetera. Apparently they weren't concerned with building a factual understanding either. Comparing this with the tools, methods, and standards of evidence of modern science is mind-boggling to me. Having said that, I must add that I don't think your doubts and skepticism about evolution are uncalled for. By all means ask questions, and look into the evidence, and get a handle on how secure or provisional various scientific ideas may be. That is learning. But if you've pre-decided that evolution must be wrong because a creation myth of some sort is "absolute truth" then I'll talk to you... never. Good luck with that. Edited May 19, 2012 by the asinine cretin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 19, 2012 Author Share Posted May 19, 2012 No. Religious creation myths are based on traditions and sacred texts. Evolution is based on multiple independent lines of physical evidence that corroborate to form a rich and substantial forensic record of the history of life. You can scoop up a text such as Futuyma's Evolution for yourself and learn a little something about the facts of evolution. You can visit a museum and see examples of the physical evidence for yourself. Religion requires faith, science does not. Common descent is a demonstrable fact. Genesis 1 is an ancient myth written by primitive people who "weren't there" and did not observe the creation of the universe or of life, et cetera. Comparing this with the tools, methods, and standards of evidence of modern science is mind-boggling to me. i dont know how to say it more clearly... (i dont care what you believe) THE THEORY OF MACRO EVOLUTION ISNT SCIENCE. (unless you dont believe richard dawkins and francis collins statements/views on it) therefore because this "process" was never observed if one wants to believe it (and i coulndt care less what you believe) it has TO BE TAKEN BY FAITH that it happened. IT IS A RELIGION JUST LIKE HINDU BUDDHISM CHRISTIANITY ETC ETC... i dont know how to put it more clearly thanks for your time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the asinine cretin Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) i dont know how to say it more clearly... (i dont care what you believe) THE THEORY OF MACRO EVOLUTION ISNT SCIENCE. (unless you dont believe richard dawkins and francis collins statements/views on it) therefore because this "process" was never observed if one wants to believe it (and i coulndt care less what you believe) it has TO BE TAKEN BY FAITH that it happened. IT IS A RELIGION JUST LIKE HINDU BUDDHISM CHRISTIANITY ETC ETC... i dont know how to put it more clearly thanks for your time... What is "the theory of macroevolution," exactly? Biodiversification across large time scales? Evolution on the scale of gene pools? Speciation? These are things based on strong physical evidence, observation, and fact. I genuinely do not understand what you're saying. Edited May 19, 2012 by the asinine cretin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 19, 2012 Author Share Posted May 19, 2012 "What is "the theory of macroevolution," exactly? Evolution on the level of gene pools? Speciation? These are things based on observation and fact. I genuinely do not understand what you're saying." lol ok sorry, umm the last few pages of this thread will have some interesting points between me and ringer (although there not to clear cut i guess) macro-evolution=molecule to man, matter to human being , piece of bacteria (i dont even know the official story lol) to a human being. micro-evolution (this is a shit name for it because it is confusing) =speciation, variation within a kind, CHANGE OF ALLELE FREQUENCY OVER TIME, mutations etc etc..these are standard things that we observe today and have absolutely nothing to do with the the MACRO-evolutionary theory (other than people like richard dawkins get on tv and confuse absolutely everyone that they ARE the same thing and that because we observe micro-evolution today well...that somehow PROVES that a cell (or something) once somehow turned into a human being...(so the macro-evolution part has never been observed and the official story from dakwins etc is it happened in the past unobserved-not science etc etc)...so yeh ..please ask more questions if you want... just a quote from richard dawkins too lol -(if you dont belive me please google it you will find it somewhere i guess)- evolution has been observed.....it just hasnt been observed while its happening......... OH OK THEN THANKS FOR THAT RICHARD! lol so this is the kind of deception/switching and swapping of terms etc etc that is necessary to get us people to believe it... thanks for your time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the asinine cretin Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 "What is "the theory of macroevolution," exactly? Evolution on the level of gene pools? Speciation? These are things based on observation and fact. I genuinely do not understand what you're saying." lol ok sorry, umm the last few pages of this thread will have some interesting points between me and ringer (although there not to clear cut i guess) macro-evolution=molecule to man, matter to human being , piece of bacteria (i dont even know the official story lol) to a human being. micro-evolution (this is a shit name for it because it is confusing) =speciation, variation within a kind, CHANGE OF ALLELE FREQUENCY OVER TIME, mutations etc etc..these are standard things that we observe today and have absolutely nothing to do with the the MACRO-evolutionary theory (other than people like richard dawkins get on tv and confuse absolutely everyone that they ARE the same thing and that because we observe micro-evolution today well...that somehow PROVES that a cell (or something) once somehow turned into a human being...(so the macro-evolution part has never been observed and the official story from dakwins etc is it happened in the past unobserved-not science etc etc)...so yeh ..please ask more questions if you want... just a quote from richard dawkins too lol -(if you dont belive me please google it you will find it somewhere i guess)- evolution has been observed.....it just hasnt been observed while its happening......... OH OK THEN THANKS FOR THAT RICHARD! lol so this is the kind of deception/switching and swapping of terms etc etc that is necessary to get us people to believe it... thanks for your time Okay, so you find abiogenesis (the chemical origins of life) and our common ancestry with modern bacteria to be unbelievable? I will grant that these are indeed big claims that go against common sense. I don't know very much about Richard Dawkins and don't think I have much to offer on that. I would like to point out that abiogenesis (e.g., prebiotic chemistry to metabolic networks & rudimentary biology capable of evolution) is distinct from evolutionary theory. I consider this to be an important distinction to make in a discussion of this kind. I would also mention that there is no theory of abiogenesis, only provisional hypotheses. They are very interesting and suggestive though. It kind of rubs me the wrong way how people often say "we don't know anything about the origins of life" and so on. Okay, sure, we've not explored it enough to have more than a vague idea about it, but I want to talk about how excellent and intriguing are the things that we do know. But that is a rant. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is a mature scientific theory that's been confirmed in many ways and that has a vast body of evidence related to it. I'm sure you can see why including abiogenesis in the definition of macroevolution is problematic to me. More later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 19, 2012 Author Share Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) ....they both fall into the same category- in the past never observed-not science (see definition of science in the post 2 above) therefore if someone believes it, it is taken by faith that it happened....so evolutionism is a world religion just like all the others (obv they all have different beliefs though)..... Edited May 19, 2012 by sammy7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts