evolution, Darwin, religion, other musings

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by EmptyForceOfChi, Jul 9, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    We're done here, I believe. PM me if you think otherwise.

    All troll posts moved to my personal collection thread.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2007
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Reopened by request. Further trolling will warrant the Cesspool.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Thats a very interesting question, may i kindly ask Saquist to answer it ?
    And while hes at it maybe answer a couple of my questions ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    S.A.M. has been most gracious to reopen the thread. This is a discussion that I don't mind participating in and since I've been here I've struggled to completely understand what is "trolling"...My attempt to avoid it as I've been accused of it before is to simply stay on topic.

    Hence, let's not make this personal. This is an impartial disucssion.

    How exactly do I get DNA to explain this? I've read many myriads of books and articles for and against evolution. The facts don't lie but interpreting that data can be one sided.

    I didn't answer this before because I didn't understand it. DNA is not memory it's information. All life is information.

    I'm saying that evolution needs a driving force.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2007
  8. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    "So when male and female breed which part is replicated?"

    If you can tell me why this of import and how it impacts the discussion?
     
  9. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Is that directed at me? If it is, you've changed my quote, which actually was:

    Important? Impacting the discussion?

    You made the claim. The claim was unsubstantiated. Please back up your claim as it is clearly wrong.

    Yeah, it's important to the discussion, don't ya think? Or, are you of the mind that you can make any claims you wish and none will be questioned? Don't think it works that way.
     
  10. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,343
    Small changes accruing over time amount to large changes. This is basic logic. Presuming you agree that changes in alleles accrue in a population over time (an observed fact) you would have to provide for a mechanism that reverses this change to refute the argument.

    What you're telling us here is that no matter how many drops of water fall into the glass it will never overflow... an obvious absurdity.

    ~Raithere
     
  11. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    It has a driving force. That force has been clearly identified and then confirmed a multiplicity of times. The driving force is survival. If you don't believe that is a powerful driving force get a friend to forcibly hold your head under water.
     
  12. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    But they have and we have tons of evidence for it. As I said earlier, your unscientific language (which can be reasonably interpreted as evidence of a minimal and haphazard scientific education that has failed to give you a working knowledge of the subject and makes it excruciatingly difficult for us to understand each other) veers off into total incoherence sometimes. But I think what you're trying to say in that sentence is that evolution never results in the descendants of a population belonging to a different major taxonomic group from the original species.

    And that is completely false. The first aquatic vertebrates developed from aquatic invertebrates and that is a "jump" from one phylum into another. As I suggested earlier you can watch the "Life on Earth" PBS special by David Attenborough which explains all this in painstaking detai--with strikingly convincing evidence and in laymen's language. That would keep all of us from wasting your time and ours trying to give you a crash course in evolutionary biology, but you have obviously chosen to ignore this very sensible, easy and helpful suggestion from people who are trying very hard to be good elders to you.

    At a lower level, the cetaceans were recently nailed down as being artiodactyls, rather than a separate class of mammals. They are the descendants of hippopotamus-like creatures who swam down to the mouth of the river and decided to keep going. We have long known that whales and dolphins have vestigial pelvic bones, so they are descended from land animals, and now we know that they were specifically descended from the ancestors of cows, giraffes and pigs, rather than seals or bears, which were logical but incorrect guesses in the pre-DNA past.

    Speaking of vestigial tissue, which is the smoking-gun evidence for evolutionary paths, if we didn't know that birds evolved from reptiles, we'd have to wonder about it every time we see the vestigial snake-like scales on their feet.

    Your oft-repeated rant that there is no evidence for this or that iteration of evidence is just plain wrong and you need to stop spouting it on a scientific website. Enough is enough. It's starting to look an awful lot like trolling, which is a violation of our rules.

    Our definition of trolling also includes "off topic" statements. Much of what you post falls into that category as well, since by not using scientific language you make us struggle to find even a tenuous relationship between what you say and a scientific topic. And in the occasional circumstance when we're barely able to do that, you're always on the outside of science attempting to disprove established theories with sophomoric statements that turn out to be patently false when we finally manage to decipher your near-gibberish.

    Scholars challenge the findings of scientists and even the scientific method all the time, with scholarly reasoning. You're not doing that. You're just trolling and trying to conceal it in your odd style of rhetoric. Stop it right now.
     
  13. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    WEll said, Fraggle.
     
  14. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Originally Posted by Saquist
    Animals change but there is no evidence that tells us that those changes are nothing more than the allowed for genetic variation inherient in every life form.

    Originally Posted by river-wind
    EXACTLY! and change a little here, a little there, a little more here, some more over here, a bit on the top, some more of the left, and a tiny tweak to this part....and you're a new species.

    Originally Posted by Saquist
    I'm sorry, but DNA simply does not allow.

    Originally Posted by Enmos
    So what you are saying is that somehow the "beginning-state" of the DNA is stored somewhere to maintain the boundaries within which variaty can occur ??

    Originally Posted by river-wind
    Unless you can get DNA itself to explain to me why it has chosen to not allow this sort of change to itself, I'm going to doubt that this claim.
    What makes you so sure that DNA simply doesn't 'allow' for too much variation from it's origination point? How can others verify this hypothesis?

    Originally Posted by Enmos
    I'll ask again, Saquist. How does DNA, according to you, maintain a memory of its origin point ?

    --------------------

    See, you are proposing that DNA can only deviate so much from it's 'original state'.
    For this to be true the 'original state' HAS to be stored somehow, somewhere. Otherwise the DNA can never 'know' how much it has already deviated, which is necessary to keep within the boundaries proposed by you.
     
  15. Possumking I think, I am? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    385
    F.R: Boom. Nice post.
     
  16. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Logic dictates small changes to the same set of parameters will always remain finite untill a different set of parameters are augmented. (small changes to the same area of intructions will never change the surrounding steps untill accessed.)

    Less than 1% of animal DNA was mutated under experimentation was useable. The variations that did occur reocurred with regularity. The recurring mutation lacked the variety to be the biochemical mechanism that evolution requires to be taken seriously. (or to simply beat improbablity)

    Like my example before it is not about adding to the instruction it's about changing the instructions. Thus the glass of water analogy does not fit.

    @Enomos

    --------------------

    So you do not believe that a cell does not store information?
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2007
  17. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Not about the DNA's 'original state', whatever that may be.
    You are dodging the question.
    And its Enmos, not Enomos. Thanks
     
  18. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Sorry, Enmos.

    I may be dodging the question because I don't understand it. It sounds as if you're saying that you don't believe that a cell can store information.
     
  19. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    What dont you understand about it?
     
  20. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Cells store information in the form of DNA. Like a chemical memory.
    If you find the facts I've present in error then please elaborate the contradiction.
     
  21. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    But where does it store the information about its origin point ?
    You said DNA can only deviated from its origin point so much to make your point about how species cant evolve into other species.
    For the changed DNA to 'check back' how much it has already changed the origin state of the DNA must be stored somewhere. If the origin state is not stored somewhere how is the DNA kept from deviating so much a new species can arise ?
     
  22. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Also Q adressed the same argument from you with a different question, you havent answered that question either:

     
  23. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Ah...I didn't say that the DNA "checked back'. I simply stated that heredity attributes can only change a very very small portion of information in the DNA strand. This information that is changable in heredity is customizing your vehicle. An after market hood and exhaust, paint job and rims will make your vehicle look different...even preform different to others of the same make and model but it does not change the fact that your vehicle is Scion or an Xb. They're are merely changable options the vehicle came with. No matter how much you vary the options the dealer gives you you'll never get a Honda Civic.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page