Prowler was born with huge genitalia!!

[PLAYER57832]

I have no issue with adaptation. Maybe darker skin, the mutated or improved gene that blocks a certain desease. How did things work out that some eventually adapted to become a turtle and I seemingly can type? Wretched seen of Cain?

No.

See, again, that is why we say you don't really understand evolution. AAfitz put it well. Darwin's ideas of "survival of the fittest" is mostly what happens when things are stable. It accounts for very slow, gradual changes (note that means slow even by geologic terms, almost all evolution, even "rapid" is very, very, very slow in human terms). Then you get a cataclysm. Huge numbers of species die off, only a few sets of genes are left. When this happens in succession, you wind up with a few, diverse species.

Take bacteria. The process is the same, its just sped up because bacteria breed so much faster than most larger species. You can have multiple generations in a day, so the results of evolution are a bit more evident. Anyway, if you get sick and take penicillin, but don't finish the dose because you "feel better", then you have killed some, but not all of the bacteria. Those that are left are naturally those more resistant to the drug. Now, did those bacteria "predict" that this drug would come along and respond? No, of course not. Mutations happen. In millions and millions of bacteria, its likely a few will have a mutation that will give them some resistance to penicillin. Some mutations, perhaps the same one, perhaps other mutations, will impart resistance to other drugs, etc. Anyway, you don't finish the bottle, the bacteria grow. You get sick again, only this time, its will a penicillin-resistant strain of the bacteria. Worse, chances are, you will pas some of this bacteria around and infect others with this new, penicillin-resistant bacteria. And, suddenly, doctors have to hurry and find a new drug to use. This process will repeat with that new drug. ..e tc. Even worse, many bacteria are able to exchange DNA. (not just viruses do this) So, now its not just that original disease, its many diseases that have this same resistance to penicillin, even completely new diseases (in some cases). And, understand, when I say they change DNA, I definitely don't mean that all bacteria in a population do this. It only takes a few. Then, using the drugs does the rest.

And that is why doctors are saying that soon we won't have anything to fight new diseases. Luckily, in a few cases, the bacteria have gone through enough mutations that they no longer have the original resistance to penicillin. But, there is no guarantee of that, at all. And, as I explained above, those bacteria can "acquire" resistance frmo other bacteria.

We cannot prevent this process. We can slow it by taking all our medication when its prescribed. AND, we can stop insisting on "bacteria resistant" everything. Ironically enough, this process won't happen with plain old soap and water. Soap simply physically removes all.

[PLAYER57832]

I have no issue with adaptation. Maybe darker skin, the mutated or improved gene that blocks a certain desease. How did things work out that some eventually adapted to become a turtle and I seemingly can type? Wretched seen of Cain?

Slowly. Very slowly over millions of years. That one gene effectively changed an entire population. There are lots of genes, and lots of opportunities for changes to them, the ones that make it better at a given time continue on, the combinations that dont, go away.

But this happens mostly when things are stable or changing slowly. When there is a huge cateclism, then "all bets are off" only a few "lucky" (for lack of a better word) species survive.

This is the part that I think stumps a lot of both young earth creationists and many "average people" who accept evolution. In fact, in my mother's generation it was virtually unknown.

[Lionz]

AAFitz,

When has a mutation created something new that was not simply the result of a scrambling of pre-existing information even if small increments add up over time? You might be able to breed living things with extra limbs and with larger and larger brains and with missing receptors that lead to them having drug resistances, but can we scramble up the letters in the word conquer and come up with the word bicycle with them? We're not going to breed wings onto descendants of mice even with a trillion years unless we transfer in genetic information from an outside source perhaps.

And there's no neanderthal bone that's not a bone of a descendant of Adam maybe. Neanderthal is a word that has to do with nephilim or 100 plus year old postflood humans or both maybe. Has a so called neanderthal bone been found anywhere outside a few hundred miles from Mt. Ararat or Europe? The brow ridge never stops growing unless it's the brow ridge of a dead body and we should expect there to be skulls with protruding brow ridges if there were postflood humans who lived for hundreds of years perhaps.

[tzor]

The one that could fly an airplane.

"Could" or "would?" ("If dolphins were meant to fly we would have larger flippers.")

[tzor]

See, again, that is why we say you don't really understand evolution. AAfitz put it well. Darwin's ideas of "survival of the fittest" is mostly what happens when things are stable. It accounts for very slow, gradual changes (note that means slow even by geologic terms, almost all evolution, even "rapid" is very, very, very slow in human terms). Then you get a cataclysm. Huge numbers of species die off, only a few sets of genes are left. When this happens in succession, you wind up with a few, diverse species.

“Evolution” tends to be just amorphous enough as to mean many things to many people. The basic core element of evolution is that over long periods of time totally random and useless changes happen; sometimes they are good, in which case the species gets better; sometimes they are bad, in which case they don’t stick around the species. What determines the “good” and “bad” is natural selection.

This is all well and good (although the natural extension of this application totally random implies the non existence of God is leaving science and winding up on the thin air of philosophy) and may explain the origin of sub-species, but it does not explain the origin of species. Moreover, the fundamental assumption is just that, an assumption. There is nothing that requires change to be completely “random.”

The origin of “species” is a much simpler answer which would not be known to Darwin because the mechanisms of life were not known to him. Long term isolation and genetic drift creates species. You don’t need to have any outward appearance changes at all if the internal DNA drifts so far as to make the sperm and ovum DNA unable to provide a common linkage. One other mechanism sounds like a bad “B” movie but genetic change can also take place as a result of viral invasion. The process would still be long term but only because of the rarity of such events.

I won’t get into detail about “intelligent design” I must make this one point about the nature of Darwinian evolution; under the model life is passive and dumb. I don’t think this is the case; I think life is a lot more in control than Darwin ever dreamed of. The biggest “extinction” in the history of life on earth was not caused by external forces but by life itself; the introduction of photosynthesis polluting the atmosphere with free oxygen. Indeed the aerobic solution (to the problem of free oxygen) is as radical (and unexplainable by Darwinists as the initial creation of the cell. Remember that now we do have viable anaerobic life forms to study (see this article) so the origins of aerobic cells and mitochondria which may have evolved from proteobacteria.

[2dimes]

The one that could fly an airplane.

"Could" or "would?" ("If dolphins were meant to fly we would have larger flippers.")

Could. My ability to fly makes me superior to the rest of the creatures.

[PLAYER57832]

See, again, that is why we say you don't really understand evolution. AAfitz put it well. Darwin's ideas of "survival of the fittest" is mostly what happens when things are stable. It accounts for very slow, gradual changes (note that means slow even by geologic terms, almost all evolution, even "rapid" is very, very, very slow in human terms). Then you get a cataclysm. Huge numbers of species die off, only a few sets of genes are left. When this happens in succession, you wind up with a few, diverse species.

“Evolution” tends to be just amorphous enough as to mean many things to many people.

No, it is a general concept-- "change over time" that can be used to explain many things. It is also a scientific theory, though more correctly its really a set of scientific theories. Many people try to say other things that are just not true.

The basic core element of evolution is that over long periods of time totally random and useless changes happen

Careful here. It is not true mathematical randomness. The term "random" in this context means basically "factors we don't understand and cannot predict". This is important. God might well be the mechanism behind evolution. Science just does not tackle that issue.

sometimes they are good, in which case the species gets better; sometimes they are bad, in which case they don’t stick around the species. What determines the “good” and “bad” is natural selection.

This is only part of what happens. In fact, what most often determines survival is really more "chance" than necessarily fitness. In amongst that is the "fitness" issue. Of course, species that are plain not adapted won't survive. However, natural selection alone is not enough to account for the full story. To get the massive changes that we see, it takes multiple cataclysms. That effectively "force" (explained better above) the change.

This is all well and good (although the natural extension of this application totally random implies the non existence of God is leaving science and winding up on the thin air of philosophy)

The mechanism, be it God or whatever, is NOT part of the scientific realm. The theory of Evolution is nuetral on that point. Claiming it means "no God" is just false.

and may explain the origin of sub-species, but it does not explain the origin of species. Moreover, the fundamental assumption is just that, an assumption. There is nothing that requires change to be completely “random.”

Again, you mis-apply the term "random". Essentially nothing is truly random in science, certainly not in biology. When a biologist, an evolutionist, etc talks of "random forces", it is a short cut for a long, detailed explanation of all the possible variables, knowns and unknowns. Like I said above, what it really means is "we don't know". Rather than list all the known possibilities, particularly when most are just not known, scientists say "random". It is understood that there are limits to those possibilities, though. Also, for anyone religious, God is certainly a part.

The origin of “species” is a much simpler answer which would not be known to Darwin because the mechanisms of life were not known to him. Long term isolation and genetic drift creates species. You don’t need to have any outward appearance changes at all if the internal DNA drifts so far as to make the sperm and ovum DNA unable to provide a common linkage. One other mechanism sounds like a bad “B” movie but genetic change can also take place as a result of viral invasion. The process would still be long term but only because of the rarity of such events.

True, to a point. However, again, to really move things forward took multiple cataclysms. Even the millions of years given are not enough to allow pure genetic drift and selection to account for all changes. To truly move the fundamental changes along took great cataclysms.

I won’t get into detail about “intelligent design” I must make this one point about the nature of Darwinian evolution; under the model life is passive and dumb.

Not by most modern interpretations. However, only part of that can be answered by science. Some is the realm of philosophy.

I don’t think this is the case; I think life is a lot more in control than Darwin ever dreamed of. The biggest “extinction” in the history of life on earth was not caused by external forces but by life itself; the introduction of photosynthesis polluting the atmosphere with free oxygen. Indeed the aerobic solution (to the problem of free oxygen) is as radical (and unexplainable by Darwinists as the initial creation of the cell.

Not true, but I am too tired to look up the explanation right now. Also, its complicated and, I believe there are several theories (not just one) running around. That is, I don't believe there is one, set, proven explanation. However, there are a lot of ideas and possibilities as to how this happened. Saying "not proven" is not at all the same as "unexplainable".

Remember that now we do have viable anaerobic life forms to study (see this article) so the origins of aerobic cells and mitochondria which may have evolved from proteobacteria.

[/quote]
Yes, we have had a lot of strange life, included a whole set that uses copper instead of iron-based "blood" cells and lives by sulphure vents. I talked to one of the guys who discovered this shortly after they published.

[AAFitz]

AAFitz,

When has a mutation created something new that was not simply the result of a scrambling of pre-existing information even if small increments add up over time? You might be able to breed living things with extra limbs and with larger and larger brains and with missing receptors that lead to them having drug resistances, but can we scramble up the letters in the word conquer and come up with the word bicycle with them? We're not going to breed wings onto descendants of mice even with a trillion years unless we transfer in genetic information from an outside source perhaps.

And there's no neanderthal bone that's not a bone of a descendant of Adam maybe. Neanderthal is a word that has to do with nephilim or 100 plus year old postflood humans or both maybe. Has a so called neanderthal bone been found anywhere outside a few hundred miles from Mt. Ararat or Europe? The brow ridge never stops growing unless it's the brow ridge of a dead body and we should expect there to be skulls with protruding brow ridges if there were postflood humans who lived for hundreds of years perhaps.

As you said, perhaps, maybe and you could have misposted, misspelled and made stuff up as always. However, perhaps, one decendent grew wings, and the other did not. Perhaps evolution theory is even incorrect, and certainly it is hardly perfectly accurate, however, there is absolutely nothing about life which requires an outside force, or certainly a creator. As far as your postflood humans living for hundreds of years...perhaps. If you find that more believable than evolution and two different groups of humanoids, great...but youre completely wrong maybe?

As far as your statues go, I once again point out that the human aptitude for art is unparralelled on earth, and we continue to create things using our imagination. If one discovers Starwars action figures in 10000 years, I hope they do not surmise that wookies walked and talked with bad actors wearing stupid clothing and ray guns.

[natty dread]

Evolution... isn't that what pokemons do when they gain a level?

[tzor]

The basic core element of evolution is that over long periods of time totally random and useless changes happen

Careful here. It is not true mathematical randomness. The term "random" in this context means basically "factors we don't understand and cannot predict". This is important. God might well be the mechanism behind evolution. Science just does not tackle that issue.

The Problem with God: Interview with Richard Dawkins

You said in a recent speech that design was not the only alternative to chance. A lot of people think that evolution is all about random chance.

That's ludicrous. That's ridiculous. Mutation is random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process. The animals that are best at whatever they do-hunting, flying, fishing, swimming, digging-whatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes. It's because of this non-random process that lions are so good at hunting, antelopes so good at running away from lions, and fish are so good at swimming.

"Mutation is random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed."

Oh and by the way, from the same interview, here is what Dawkins thinks of you (and me).

There are intelligent people who have been taught good science and evolution, and who may choose to believe in something religious that may seem to fly in the face of science. What do you make of that?

It's certainly hard to know what to make of it. I think it's a betrayal of science. I think they have a religious agenda which, for reasons best known to themselves, they elevate above science.

Apparently both you and I are traitors to science.

[natty dread]

Mutations happen at random. Some mutations are beneficial, while others are harmful.

The ones with harmful mutations die. The ones with beneficial mutations survive and pass on their genes.

Although it is the circumstances that will define which mutation is harmful and which beneficial.

For example, if we have a population of lizards, and suddenly one lizard is born with wings... If flying helps the lizard to find food easier, then it's a beneficial mutation. On the other hand, if it makes the lizard fall prey to flying predators, then it's harmful.

Let's say it was indeed a beneficial mutation, and thousands of years later we have a population of flying lizards. Now suddenly mutation strikes, and one flying lizard is born with feathers. The feathers help keep the lizard warm so it conserves energy. And thousands of years later we have a population of feathered flying lizards...

[PLAYER57832]

Dawkins may be intelligent, but he is hardly perfect. To someone like Jay, I am an idiot who cannot read the Bible. To someone like Dawkins, I am an idiot who things there is more "out there" than science will ever likely explain.

I say, as I have in other threads, that an inability to look outside the bounds of absolute proof is a failing, a limitation of some minds... even great ones.

[PLAYER57832]

Mutations happen at random. Some mutations are beneficial, while others are harmful.

The ones with harmful mutations die. The ones with beneficial mutations survive and pass on their genes.

Although it is the circumstances that will define which mutation is harmful and which beneficial.

For example, if we have a population of lizards, and suddenly one lizard is born with wings... If flying helps the lizard to find food easier, then it's a beneficial mutation. On the other hand, if it makes the lizard fall prey to flying predators, then it's harmful.

Let's say it was indeed a beneficial mutation, and thousands of years later we have a population of flying lizards. Now suddenly mutation strikes, and one flying lizard is born with feathers. The feathers help keep the lizard warm so it conserves energy. And thousands of years later we have a population of feathered flying lizards...

This is true, but it is nowhere near the entire story of evolution. It is just one piece.

[natty dread]

This is true, but it is nowhere near the entire story of evolution. It is just one piece.

I know, I should have mentioned that it was an extreme simplification.

[DangerBoy]

Dawkins may be intelligent, but he is hardly perfect. To someone like Jay, I am an idiot who cannot read the Bible. To someone like Dawkins, I am an idiot who things there is more "out there" than science will ever likely explain.

I wouldn't call you an idiot, but you definitely come across as someone who has a personal hatred for Dr. Henry Morris. It doesn't come across as simply an academic dispute. It's almost like you're on a jihad. It's the same when it comes to businesses or corporations. You just seem like someone who is very bitter against the wealthy or who has a different interpretation of the Christian faith than yourself. You probably don't but it just comes across that way sometimes. I'm also guilty of lashing out against people who I don't agree with so you could easily make me out as a right wing nutzo.

[Timminz]

I hate everyone who makes it their life mission to deceive as many people as possible.

[jay_a2j]

I hate everyone who makes it their life mission to deceive as many people as possible.

I don't think it was Darwin's motivation to deceive people. I think he actually believed it at the time.

[nietzsche]

I'm wondering a couple of things that can't really be answered so obviously by most athiest standards that makes the theory of evolution a fairy tale, correct?

If we all evolved from the same origional thing why are humans so vastly superior? Seriously, does anyone even think it's close.

Second, why does a change take so long if I can go from two cells to a fully developed mammel in around 9 months?

We spent a month and a half in Australia, New Zealand and Egypt when my wife was pregnant and our son was born very dark. We being mostly scottish with some Irish, brit, norwiegian, german and polish ancestory are nice and pasty. As a newly formed person he has slight traits due to the enviroment his mother lived in while he was being developed.

Even though Africans, Mongolians and Oceanic people changed physically due to location they are still humans in every way arn't they?

How would the mechanism that retards evolution occur and why? I would think if my kid needed webbed feet it could have developed them while his foot developed. I know dyno newbolic acid is holding him back. Do trees have that stuff?

I didn't want to get into this thread... but


hahahahhahahahahahahahahaha

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Neoteny]

I say, as I have in other threads, that an inability to look outside the bounds of absolute proof is a failing, a limitation of some minds... even great ones.

Of course you do. And I think that the ability to believe in something without evidence is a failing. Put an opinion in one hand...

[PLAYER57832]

Dawkins may be intelligent, but he is hardly perfect. To someone like Jay, I am an idiot who cannot read the Bible. To someone like Dawkins, I am an idiot who things there is more "out there" than science will ever likely explain.

I wouldn't call you an idiot, but you definitely come across as someone who has a personal hatred for Dr. Henry Morris. It doesn't come across as simply an academic dispute. It's almost like you're on a jihad. It's the same when it comes to businesses or corporations. You just seem like someone who is very bitter against the wealthy or who has a different interpretation of the Christian faith than yourself. You probably don't but it just comes across that way sometimes. I'm also guilty of lashing out against people who I don't agree with so you could easily make me out as a right wing nutzo.

Corporations, no. Its just that in recent times, there is a larg group that seems to think corporations can do no harm and that any attempt to reign in their abuses is tantamount to being "pro communism".

As for Dr Morris, Timminz put it well. I am against anyone who puts forth lies as truth, particularly when they do it in the name of Christ. Nothing put forward on those Creation websites really proves anything against Evolution or proves that the Earth is young. And, while I am quite sure Dr Morris and most of his followers believe they are just "following the Bible", I find it interesting that this issue, one Christ did not even directly address, is the one they use as the wedge within the church. This movement is most definitely NOT from Christ or the Bible. Christ has no need to lie. He disdains liars.

[PLAYER57832]

I say, as I have in other threads, that an inability to look outside the bounds of absolute proof is a failing, a limitation of some minds... even great ones.

Of course you do. And I think that the ability to believe in something without evidence is a failing. Put an opinion in one hand...

Correction. Evidence that you don't see or plain refuse to acknowledge. BIG difference!

And, I am not asking YOU to believe, simply to stop saying anyone who does is an utter idiot because we don't think like you.

All you are doing is giving folks like Jay more fodder.

[Neoteny]

I have never called a religious person an idiot (for being religious; there are plenty of religious people who are, but that's not limited to religion). We can talk about what I see or refuse to see for hours, but you will likely never tell me what it is that I'm missing, which is telling.

[DangerBoy]

As for Dr Morris, Timminz put it well. I am against anyone who puts forth lies as truth, particularly when they do it in the name of Christ. Nothing put forward on those Creation websites really proves anything against Evolution or proves that the Earth is young. And, while I am quite sure Dr Morris and most of his followers believe they are just "following the Bible", I find it interesting that this issue, one Christ did not even directly address, is the one they use as the wedge within the church. This movement is most definitely NOT from Christ or the Bible. Christ has no need to lie. He disdains liars.

Alright, but see that's your problem. You're not just satisfied with saying that he's wrong. You're taking the extra step to call him a liar. That's why you come off as so judgmental. To be a liar, he would have to have previous knowledge that something else, in this case evolutionary theory, is correct. He would then have to knowingly put out ideas that were contrary to what he knew was correct.

We used to debate different doctrines and theology in the Jesus Freaks forum. There's consensus on the major doctrines but not on little issues. Shoot, I can't think of one person who agrees with Jay on a whole host of issues but nobody thinks he is purposely trying to deceive us. He's really really wrong but that's where it ends. Nobody I've read from has ever taken the extra step of calling someone they disagree with a liar during our disagreements. Can you see why you come off as hateful when you take the extra step of judging Dr. Morris as a liar? Calling someone's views as wrong is totally different.

[gannable]

ive been reading on this topic.

its obvious to me that Evolution is a religion that is complete nonsense.

you need a cursory understanding of DNA and gentics to know that Evolution from species to species is impossible.

[gannable]

LOL utter nonsense

there are no beneficial mutations

mutations damages the gene pool

Mutations happen at random. Some mutations are beneficial, while others are harmful.

The ones with harmful mutations die. The ones with beneficial mutations survive and pass on their genes.

Although it is the circumstances that will define which mutation is harmful and which beneficial.

For example, if we have a population of lizards, and suddenly one lizard is born with wings... If flying helps the lizard to find food easier, then it's a beneficial mutation. On the other hand, if it makes the lizard fall prey to flying predators, then it's harmful.

Let's say it was indeed a beneficial mutation, and thousands of years later we have a population of flying lizards. Now suddenly mutation strikes, and one flying lizard is born with feathers. The feathers help keep the lizard warm so it conserves energy. And thousands of years later we have a population of feathered flying lizards...