evolution, Darwin, religion, other musings

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also Q adressed the same argument from you with a different question, you havent answered that question either:

Ah...you've noticed...
Q wasn't being nice. He actually is making some good points I'd like to respond to. But he's offending my delicate sensibilities so I feel he doesn't really want a response but rather wants a test of wills.

And I don't especially enjoy this sort of debating. It draws the discussion off topic rather than remaining dedicated to the facts. I'd rather not play that game.
 
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.

I think i see wherein the problem lies.
You are talking about the genetic mutations in an animal, these are ofcourse very small and dont cause much change.

But when the animal gets offspring it passes on his mutated genes.
Repeat, repeat, repeat...
Now if the mutation has any benefit to the offspring, however slight, it will probably stay in the genepool. Whenever something happens that changes the environment some animals that have the gene will have a slight advantage over the other, resulting in better chances of survival.. thus on average more offspring. This offspring will have the new gene, and thus the genepool will contain more and more of the new gene that gives the animals that have it an advantage.
Over many many generations a new species might evolve, this ofcourse take more than one gene to change.. but i guess you get the idea.

See i was talking many generations all along while you were talking parent->offspring.
Species dont change from one generation to another, i think thats what youre actually saying. And you'd be right.
 
saquist said:
No matter how much you vary the options the dealer gives you you'll never get a Honda Civic.
Here is revealed the essential problem (besides your refusal to sit down and learn what evolutionary theory is): you assume a dealer, who has limited the options available.

In the real world, there is no dealer, and no such preset limits on the options: any stretch of the DNA can recombine, duplicate, mutate, invert, jump chormosomes, acquire new regulatory influence, split, acquire inserts, etc.

Some more easily than others.

So we find that some bacteria can alter a third of their genome in a few generations.

That is a lot more than 1%.

And so changes in the genome can - and have been observed to - accumulate. Indefinitely.
 
I think i see wherein the problem lies.
You are talking about the genetic mutations in an animal, these are ofcourse very small and dont cause much change.

But when the animal gets offspring it passes on his mutated genes.
Repeat, repeat, repeat...
Now if the mutation has any benefit to the offspring, however slight, it will probably stay in the genepool. Whenever something happens that changes the environment some animals that have the gene will have a slight advantage over the other, resulting in better chances of survival.. thus on average more offspring. This offspring will have the new gene, and thus the genepool will contain more and more of the new gene that gives the animals that have it an advantage.
Over many many generations a new species might evolve, this ofcourse take more than one gene to change.. but i guess you get the idea.

See i was talking many generations all along while you were talking parent->offspring.
Species dont change from one generation to another, i think thats what youre actually saying. And you'd be right.

I thought you were talking parent and offspring...some how we're on different pages.

I simply saying that whether it be directed parental heredity or ancestoral heredity a species has liimit to change. We've never observed anything else. Life would seem to have limmits.

It's a conclusion thousands of scientist (If not millions have come to) It is indeed the issue of debate. In general opposition to the evolutionary hypothesis Darwin created is curbbed because of the issue of religion that always seems to come to the fore.

But everything I've told you is true. But don't my word for it. I've accumlated a large data based to the topic and the number of scientist who disagree with evolution is large.

My words are they're words.

Where is the biochemical mechanism?
Where is the observable proof that makes evolution a fact?
Why do biogenesis experiments continue to create chicken and the egg paradoxes?
How does evolution begin to defy the improbable.

Life does change. But does Life truely evolve?
The evidence says, no.
 
I thought you were talking parent and offspring...some how we're on different pages.

I simply saying that whether it be directed parental heredity or ancestoral heredity a species has liimit to change. We've never observed anything else. Life would seem to have limmits.

It's a conclusion thousands of scientist (If not millions have come to) It is indeed the issue of debate. In general opposition to the evolutionary hypothesis Darwin created is curbbed because of the issue of religion that always seems to come to the fore.

But everything I've told you is true. But don't my word for it. I've accumlated a large data based to the topic and the number of scientist who disagree with evolution is large.

My words are they're words.

Where is the biochemical mechanism?
Where is the observable proof that makes evolution a fact?
Why do biogenesis experiments continue to create chicken and the egg paradoxes?
How does evolution begin to defy the improbable.

Life does change. But does Life truely evolve?
The evidence says, no.

Will you at least agree to this bit ?

"But when the animal gets offspring it passes on his mutated genes.
Repeat, repeat, repeat...
Now if the mutation has any benefit to the offspring, however slight, it will probably stay in the genepool. Whenever something happens that changes the environment some animals that have the gene will have a slight advantage over the other, resulting in better chances of survival.. thus on average more offspring. This offspring will have the new gene, and thus the genepool will contain more and more of the new gene that gives the animals that have it an advantage."
 
I thought you were talking parent and offspring...some how we're on different pages.

I simply saying that whether it be directed parental heredity or ancestoral heredity a species has liimit to change. We've never observed anything else. Life would seem to have limmits.

It's a conclusion thousands of scientist (If not millions have come to) It is indeed the issue of debate. In general opposition to the evolutionary hypothesis Darwin created is curbbed because of the issue of religion that always seems to come to the fore.

But everything I've told you is true. But don't my word for it. I've accumlated a large data based to the topic and the number of scientist who disagree with evolution is large.

My words are they're words.

Where is the biochemical mechanism?
Where is the observable proof that makes evolution a fact?
Why do biogenesis experiments continue to create chicken and the egg paradoxes?
How does evolution begin to defy the improbable.

Life does change. But does Life truely evolve?
The evidence says, no.

(Excuse me whilst I try to channel Lenny Flank.)

So where are your facts? This large database you talk about, where is it?
 
Saquist:

I simply saying that whether it be directed parental heredity or ancestoral heredity a species has liimit to change. We've never observed anything else.

Why, then, when we compare the DNA of different species, do we find clear implications of relatedness? For example, if I compare the DNA of a human being, a chimpanzee and a dog, I find that the human and chimpanzee share much more DNA in common than, say, the chimpanzee and the dog. Yet you would claim, I suppose, that none of these three species is in any way related to the others - they were all separate "creations", right?

Where is the biochemical mechanism?

The biochemistry of DNA has been well understood for quite some time now.

Where is the observable proof that makes evolution a fact?

The fossil record, direct observation in the lab, DNA evidence, the observed changes in domesticated species of plants and animals over time, the sheer number of closely related species that are observed, the very fact of hereditary characteristics in the first place, etc. etc. The list is endless.

Why do biogenesis experiments continue to create chicken and the egg paradoxes?

They don't.

How does evolution begin to defy the improbable.

What impossible?

Life does change. But does Life truely evolve?
The evidence says, no.

I don't think you have much of a grip on the evidence. But then, you don't actually care about that, do you? You'll support anything that seems to back up your religious views, and never mind the science.
 
Q wasn't being nice. He actually is making some good points I'd like to respond to. But he's offending my delicate sensibilities so I feel he doesn't really want a response but rather wants a test of wills.
The rest of us have been nice but we're all getting really tired of you taking up SciForums' bandwidth with your rants. I have chided Q in the past for being too hard on people but this is a case where he speaks for all of us.
And I don't especially enjoy this sort of debating. It draws the discussion off topic rather than remaining dedicated to the facts. I'd rather not play that game.
On the contrary, this is YOUR game.
  • You know very little about science. Perhaps you have studied it but it didn't sink in. You don't understand the scientific method and you're not interested in learning it.
  • You know very little about evolutionary biology. Virtually everything you state as though it were either a fact or an established principle is just flat wrong. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
  • You don't pay attention. Many of us have explained some of these things to you with great patience and using the most elementary language that is capable of covering the topic. Yet you refuse to listen and keep repeating your own falsehoods.
  • You are trolling. You did not come here to have a scientific discussion. You came here hoping that some of our younger members would be convinced by your rhetoric to adopt your pseudoscientific views, and ready to amuse yourself by engaging us in arguments and wasting our time.
  • You have violated both the rules and the spirit of this website. You should be banned. I will notify the moderator of Science and Society.
Goodbye and good riddance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top