Evolution [Debate Proposal]

[Pi-Sudoku]

I would like to clarify one thing.

I have no personal gain from evolution being proven or disproven and if it was disproven i would be happy that science had advanced, what i am fighting for is for it not to be replaced by some half baked idea of dinosours not existing and orange juice appearing in baccardi bottles

[jax0509]

he was just trying to look hard 'innit dawg' lol that one will stay with me for a long time

[Buckaroo Banzai]

You have undoubtedly heard of DNA, chromosome and genes. DNA guide the cell in its construction of new enzymes.
The DNA in a cell is actually just a blueprint made up of four diverse parts, called nucleotides or bases. Envisage a set of blocks that has only four diverse shapes, or an alphabet that has only four diverse lettering. DNA is a long string of blocks or lettering. In an E. coli cell, the DNA blueprint is about 4 million blocks lengthy. If you were to extend out this solitary stand of DNA, it would be 1.36 mm long -- pretty extensive taking into account the bacteria itself is 1,000 times smaller. In micro organisms, the DNA strand is like a wadded up ball of twine. Visualize taking 1,000 feet of extremely thin thread and wadding it up - you could easily hold it in your hand. [A human's DNA is about 3 billion blocks long, or almost 1,000 times longer than an E. coil’s. Human DNA is so long that the wadded up approach does not work. as a substitute, human DNA is securely wrapped into 23 or 24 structures although am not sure I think its 23. Anyway it’s called chromosomes to pack it more firmly and fit it inside a cell.
The amazing thing about DNA is this: DNA is zilch more than a guide that tells the cell how to make its proteins! That is all that DNA does. The 4 million bases in an E. coli cell's DNA advice the cell how to make the 1,000 or so enzymes that an E. coli cell needs to live its life. A gene is merely a section of DNA that acts as a guide to form an enzyme.
Anyone that suggests that all this happens randomly and not in a process is crazy. That is the problem; something had to create all this intelligently designed mapping and instruction.

The fact that is not fully known how life started doesn´t make evolution impossible, neither disproves all the evidence of biological relatedness between all organisms in a phylogenetic tree (That would otherwise be just a giant coincidence, since organisms forms would be RANDOM with respect to biological relatedness).

Also, none of the proposals of how metabolism work, or about origin of life state that it´s all random. Non-intelligent process is not a synonym of randomness.

[jax0509]

most agree that life started as bacteria

[Pi-Sudoku]

Whatever life atarted as it is surely more likely that it was a single celled organism.
In which case evolution seems a very likely way of humans and other animals developing

[Buckaroo Banzai]

most agree that life started as bacteria

actually not, life probably took a long way of evolution from simple chemical systems to something that would consensually be called "life".

See this image of how are the different views of abiogenesis, the view that creationists have, and the real, scientific present view

(from here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html )

[Pi-Sudoku]

In the abcense of Muslim i will take a break

[Muslim]

correct, a theory is not a fact unless it is proven (evolution hasn't been)
However it has not been disproven and usually a theory stands untill a better theory is suggestd (not one)

Firstly I suggest you learn to spell. Secondly I suggest you learn to read, what you have posted is irrelevant it doesn’t address what I said in the least bit. Well evolution has actually been disproved, as an instance, if the theory of evolution were factual, then the fossil records would ALWAYS be evidence for a smooth changeover from one life form to another, such that it would be complex to tell where invertebrates ended, and vertebrates began. This is NOT constantly the case. Instead, completely formed life forms have been revealed to abruptly jump into the fossil evidence ostensibly from nowhere, with irrational gaps before them where their ancestors should be. Numerous evolutionists do not dispute this fact, while others look the other way.

I don't think there is much evidence that race has helped or hindered humans much so far but it is very possible that wiuth changing surroundings one race may prove to have an advantage.

I don’t see why you had to post something totally irrelevant as to what I said. Its funny you should say changing soundings, the first Homo sapiens appeared in and around Africa. And the surrounding was the same for everyone, so the argument of surrounding doesn’t even wash.

Evolution is linked to life Life = chemicle reactions
Biology is just chemistry

How does life constitute to being “chemical reactions” you’re suggesting everything is a “chemical reaction” also suppose we take this argument to be factual could you explain to be in the next post whether “chemical reactions” are random or processes.

In that case how come we have several copies of the same bones.
Dinosour bones have been carbon dated to over 200 million years ago and there are no human bones from that long ago. The exact form of dinosours is probablyt not totally accurate but go to the natural history museum and tell them that the dinousour bones are fakes, see how far that gets you

Carbon dating is not accurate, when you go by “evolutionary” and even so If there is several copies of the bone it could be bones of former mammoths undiscovered spices of animal. Or reptile now could I call a snake with legs a dinoursour? Would a sneak with legs still be a sneak? Take a look at this image: now what do you suggest we call that? a sneak dinoursor?

Wow!
I have never claimed to be an expert on evolution and i value the input of other members, that is what a forum is all about.

I will defend the theory and have sufficient knowledge to compete with who,who clearly has no knowledge of anything.

Well this is a debate with me and you, if others are going to help you then what are the point with me debating you I might aswell be debating them.

[Athelwulf]

Okay, I think I know how Muslim works. Everyone who disagrees with him is an Atheist. Somehow Muslims know better than Atheists, and he proudly declares that by means of ad hominem attacks. And he does a poor job of it too.

He makes me laugh.

[Lemming3k]

Evidence of dinosaurs? There is no evidence of dinoursrous, no one had found a full skeleton of a dinosaur. For all we know they could be bones of mammoths, there is not a fully formed skeleton of a dinourrs in any museum made of its original bones. Many of the skeletons bits are added to forum a dinoursour. I could go out find a undiscovered species of mammoth and claim it’s a dinirousur.

Im going to give you an educational story, the first dinosaur skeleton found was an iguanadon in the 1800's, they found a large sharp tooth like object which they presumed belonged to a giant jaw of said creature, when they found the skull and the majority of other bones, they started to piece them together like a jigsaw and realise they didnt have a tooth at all, they had a thumb-spike, this is where the piece fitted on the skeleton, you do not need a complete skeleton to see what you are looking at, if they find a human skull or ribcage etc, they can be fairly sure they have a human, they need not have a full skeleton. Think of it as a jigsaw, you do not need every single piece to see what the picture is about, you could fill in the blanks yourself.

Firstly I suggest you learn to spell

dinoursor

changing soundings

spices of animal

Muslim you're in no position to criticise spelling, as usual. Perhaps you both merely make typos? Or hadnt you considered that?

Well evolution has actually been disproved, as an instance, if the theory of evolution were factual, then the fossil records would ALWAYS be evidence for a smooth changeover from one life form to another, such that it would be complex to tell where invertebrates ended, and vertebrates began. This is NOT constantly the case. Instead, completely formed life forms have been revealed to abruptly jump into the fossil evidence ostensibly from nowhere, with irrational gaps before them where their ancestors should be. Numerous evolutionists do not dispute this fact, while others look the other way.

From what i can tell you have a basic misunderstanding of evolution, and perhaps fossilization.
Fossils only form under the right conditions, most things, sometimes due to carbon dating or other methods(see below) are given a rough estimate of where they formed, hence there will be crossover, there will also be crossover as one form of life slowly dies out and another becomes dominant, it is not an instant process, and its not necessarily smooth, have you ever seen the development tree for homo sapiens from our ancestors?

Carbon dating is not accurate,

Can you provide backup for this to support your claims? Im quite aware it isnt 100%, and is not able to pinpoint a precise date, hence usually multiple readings are taken and they have a margin of error in a way, any carbon date will have a +/- of a certain number of years to give a range where the date comes from.
They also use potassium argon dating.

[Lemming3k]

Okay, I think I know how Muslim works. Everyone who disagrees with him is an Atheist. Somehow Muslims know better than Atheists, and he proudly declares that by means of ad hominem attacks. And he does a poor job of it too.

He makes me laugh.

He does have high entertainment value i'll give him that.

[Muslim]

Am dyslexic, so what if I spell a few words wrong.

[Athelwulf]

Am dyslexic, so what if I spell a few words wrong.

So what? Well, it sorta renders you unable to tell people to learn how to spell, especially people who make fewer and more minor mistakes than you.

[mountainhare]

Muslim:

The amazing thing about DNA is this: DNA is zilch more than a guide that tells the cell how to make its proteins! That is all that DNA does. The 4 million bases in an E. coli cell's DNA advice the cell how to make the 1,000 or so enzymes that an E. coli cell needs to live its life. A gene is merely a section of DNA that acts as a guide to form an enzyme.
Anyone that suggests that all this happens randomly and not in a process is crazy. That is the problem; something had to create all this intelligently designed mapping and instruction.

Who has ever claimed that the evolution of DNA was a random process? Natural Selection is not random. Nor are the chemical and physical laws which govern DNA synthesis.

[Athelwulf]

That is the problem; something had to create all this intelligently designed mapping and instruction.

And you say you're not a creationist.

[Pi-Sudoku]

Well this is a debate with me and you, if others are going to help you then what are the point with me debating you I might aswell be debating them.

I could t ake you on 1v1 any time you like, i just don't see any purpose on ignoring all of these educated minds and their valuable contributions

[jax0509]

I could t ake you on 1v1 any time you like, i just don't see any purpose on ignoring all of these educated minds and their valuable contributions

Pi get off the internet now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! where are using the internet from??

[Pi-Sudoku]

Jax, I am in Room 49

[Muslim]

Muslim:

Who has ever claimed that the evolution of DNA was a random process? Natural Selection is not random. Nor are the chemical and physical laws which govern DNA synthesis.

So a chemical reaction is not a proses?

[mountainhare]

Muslim:

So a chemical reaction is not a proses?

*sigh*
Why do I even bother?
Since when did I dispute that a chemical reaction is not process?
I disputed your claim that scientists assert that the diversity of DNA is due to a random process. Because it's bullshit. Once again...

1. Evolution is not random. Natural selection is a non-random process.

2. Chemical reactions are not random. They are governed by chemical and physical laws.