The Science of Biological Evolution (no politics or religion)
Sort:
Sep 2, 2016
0
#3423
0110001101101000 wrote:
Twpsyn wrote:
0110001101101000 wrote:
"Sure the immune system, the eye, and bacterial flagellum were the evidences back then and sure evolutionary scientists have come up with stages of how it could happen. It doesn't necessarily mean that it happened like that."
---
I completely agree with the last sentence. But all that's necessary is to show it's reducible... i.e. that a simpler design could still provide benefit. For example, half a heart provides zero benefit, but e.g. a two chamber heart may be better than a 1 chamber even though a 1 chamber heart can still provide benefit to the organism.
"all we've seen over the years is a general loss of information over time. Need I remind you, copying mistakes happen and our ancestors were bigger better human beings."
---
Mutations add information, bigger isn't necessarily better, and I'm pretty sure people were smaller in the past.
"If I were given the task of producing a motor to produce ATP I'd be hard pressed to design one that is better, smaller, more efficient than the one existing in nature."
---
Irreducible doesn't claim you can't make a better one, just the opposite, it claims you can't make a simpler version.
Hi,
Sorry about the length of the last post.
Mutations adds Information.
Take it that you mean useful information. You seen, this is not what scientists have tended to find, either mutations are copying errors or they are the addition of useless information both of which are of no beneficial value, in fact some, especially the addition of information without human assistance is positively detrimental.
OK, perhaps, given time you might find an useful mutation. The chance is highly unlikely. But so many? And even, then they have found that the human genome is loosing information with time. I know you are not convinced of this, but look it up.
"bigger isn't necessarily better", I take your point, but do you take mine that a general loss of information might be a problem?
You know I find the theory of evolution theory a bit like Sherlock Homes. If you dismiss the impossible whatever remains however improbable must the truth. My problem with it is that it they have seemed to dismissed Intelligent Design without due diligence, in my mind for mainly ideological reasons. If there is no Intelligent Designer, then sure why not the theory of evolution it's highly unlikely, but if it's all that remains then it must be the truth.
I won't pretend to know what the various parts of the motor are that is used to produce ATP. But inside a typical motor there is a stator and a rotor. I'm guessing, they are saying there is no way one is of useful benefit without the other.
I also am aware of an argument for irreducible complexity based on RNA and protiens but can't recall the details. It's proberbly something along the lines of you need protiens to build RNA, protiens are built by RNA.
This is something I'd have to ask a biologist. As far as I know, mutations do add useful information... although DNA isn't a computer program, it's not like 5 lines of code are added, so this may be sloppy phrasing to say "add/subtract information."
---
As for ideologically dismissing an intelligent designer, well, yes. I think that happens... let me give an example.
Recently my toaster stopped working. So what do I do? I push the lever down a few times to see if maybe I didn't go down far enough. I plug in other appliances into that socket, I check the breaker box. When I look for and find a natural explanation I'm not denying God turned off my toaster... it's just that supernatural cause and effect are completely outside of my ability to determine. Sure, maybe God turned off my toaster, but if I find the breaker has been flipped, when I tell the story to people that's going to be the explanation I use.
A research biologist can personally believe in supernatural cause and effect, but their profession has nothing to do with it.
I think you might be confusing what you're saying with what we are saying. You are saying DNA is not like a computer program I'll grant you that, we however are saying DNA is exactly like a computer program for want of a better description.
Apparently there is a 1 in 270 chance of useful information being added according to the blurb I just read. But I fear that blurb makes the same mistake as you, mistaking what they are saying with what we saying. They are also saying that the original information wasn't all that useful in the first place. I won't bore you with the whole mistakes happen thing again.
So you yourself do not deny the existence of the Intelligent Designer? If you do can you tell me the reason why?
Don't get me wrong the scientific method has a place in this world, it has its uses, as long as it is used in conjunction with the belief in the Intelligent Designer that is.
Sep 2, 2016
0
#3424
I don't know how genes work. So if you want to get specific about mutations in DNA I wont be able to follow the conversation.
---
The natural processes of life on earth being designed by a higher power doesn't bother me. It's a reasonable idea. However I have a big problem when people say, e.g., that the Christian god did it. I think this is definitely false.
Sep 2, 2016
0
#3425
Fair enough. I think that's about as far as we can go within the premise of this form.
0110001101101000 wrote:
I don't know how genes work. So if you want to get specific about mutations in DNA I wont be able to follow the conversation.
---
The natural processes of life on earth being designed by a higher power doesn't bother me. It's a reasonable idea. However I have a big problem when people say, e.g., that the Christian god did it. I think this is definitely false.
richie_and_oprah wrote:
You are not capable of understanding reasons.Stop being a jerk-off.
Lie down on Oprah's couch, stop being a know it all pompous ass and grow up. Your holier than everyone else comments in every topic is really very boring. You do know this. Can't help yourself, can you.
Button your pie hole. Every topic you jump into is some rant shouting how we are idiots, you are the bearer of the facts . We get it. Chill, take a pill, play chess.
Sep 2, 2016
0
#3430
You are distorting a lot of things man, it's not epic, people go to jail for much less, and we are not taking any pills, and I believe I can speak for everyone in here, not even the one I should have taken some 5 years ago, but I was supposed to be ill just to lose myself so it's not such a problem, they are not paying you a dime otherwise, when quitting your job was the point, man, but I could have been ill, who is to say anyway.
Twpsyn wrote:
extenza wrote:
roughly 2000 years ago and even then he was not an alien (physically from another planet).}
That verse deal with true physical alien from other planet in our world.While faster than light technology is the means to go to fairy world.The both are real according to holy book.
It is true, some have interpreted that verse to be a race of physical aliens that came to visit the earth. There are other more likely answers and most do not subscribe to this view. My guess is if we ever find intelligent life on other planets that verse will become very popular.
I mean my verse is deal with true physical alien.I interpret your verse as the Adam's pure descendant that still alive which was has a giant body.As i mentioned in my previous post,that some of evolved Adam's descendant have interbreed with modern human.
Sep 2, 2016
0
#3432
The returning earthling theory? A subclass of this theory is that UFO's are piloted by our own descendants. God certainly had human beings in mind in creating the universe. Right? Religious Crap!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg7O0GzrHmA
Sep 2, 2016
0
#3433
And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. Matthew 24:3-14
And he said, ‘Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.’ Luke 21:8
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 1 Timothy 4:1-3
go ye not therefore after them?
Sep 3, 2016
0
#3434
Yes well, we're not supposed to discuss religion. My objection to the belief of pan sperma was not that it was fairy tales but that it could be taken as a sign of desperation. Who finds it a little supicious that this new guy appeared on this sight only a few days ago?
Sep 3, 2016
0
#3435
Panspermia,
the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, in the form of unintended contamination by microorganisms.
leklerk1 wrote:
Panspermia,
the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, in the form of unintended contamination by microorganisms.
We are Nomad. We are complete. Sterilize biological imperfections.
leklerk1 wrote:
The returning earthling theory? A subclass of this theory is that UFO's are piloted by our own descendants. God certainly had human beings in mind in creating the universe. Right? Religious Crap!
That is an interesting theory.Physics have proof that our universe is really a wonder by harnessing quantum world.But maybe we should know that magic is truly different than science.It mean we may could find science behind magic,but there is no assurance of it.And religion seems to embrace the both.The fact that religion words could overcome magic is not a scientific approach.
Sep 3, 2016
0
#3438
So you conceded that there are many questions that remain unanswered by science? But you think in light of this it's better to believe in magic than a belief in the Intelligent Designer?
Maybe you agree that only the creator that could overcome the creation.So, it is god.
"Sure the immune system, the eye, and bacterial flagellum were the evidences back then and sure evolutionary scientists have come up with stages of how it could happen. It doesn't necessarily mean that it happened like that."
---
I completely agree with the last sentence. But all that's necessary is to show it's reducible... i.e. that a simpler design could still provide benefit. For example, half a heart provides zero benefit, but e.g. a two chamber heart may be better than a 1 chamber even though a 1 chamber heart can still provide benefit to the organism.
"all we've seen over the years is a general loss of information over time. Need I remind you, copying mistakes happen and our ancestors were bigger better human beings."
---
Mutations add information, bigger isn't necessarily better, and I'm pretty sure people were smaller in the past.
"If I were given the task of producing a motor to produce ATP I'd be hard pressed to design one that is better, smaller, more efficient than the one existing in nature."
---
Irreducible doesn't claim you can't make a better one, just the opposite, it claims you can't make a simpler version.
Hi,
Sorry about the length of the last post.
Mutations adds Information.
Take it that you mean useful information. You seen, this is not what scientists have tended to find, either mutations are copying errors or they are the addition of useless information both of which are of no beneficial value, in fact some, especially the addition of information without human assistance is positively detrimental.
OK, perhaps, given time you might find an useful mutation. The chance is highly unlikely. But so many? And even, then they have found that the human genome is loosing information with time. I know you are not convinced of this, but look it up.
"bigger isn't necessarily better", I take your point, but do you take mine that a general loss of information might be a problem?
You know I find the theory of evolution theory a bit like Sherlock Homes. If you dismiss the impossible whatever remains however improbable must the truth. My problem with it is that it they have seemed to dismissed Intelligent Design without due diligence, in my mind for mainly ideological reasons. If there is no Intelligent Designer, then sure why not the theory of evolution it's highly unlikely, but if it's all that remains then it must be the truth.
I won't pretend to know what the various parts of the motor are that is used to produce ATP. But inside a typical motor there is a stator and a rotor. I'm guessing, they are saying there is no way one is of useful benefit without the other.
I also am aware of an argument for irreducible complexity based on RNA and protiens but can't recall the details. It's proberbly something along the lines of you need protiens to build RNA, protiens are built by RNA.
This is something I'd have to ask a biologist. As far as I know, mutations do add useful information... although DNA isn't a computer program, it's not like 5 lines of code are added, so this may be sloppy phrasing to say "add/subtract information."
---
As for ideologically dismissing an intelligent designer, well, yes. I think that happens... let me give an example.
Recently my toaster stopped working. So what do I do? I push the lever down a few times to see if maybe I didn't go down far enough. I plug in other appliances into that socket, I check the breaker box. When I look for and find a natural explanation I'm not denying God turned off my toaster... it's just that supernatural cause and effect are completely outside of my ability to determine. Sure, maybe God turned off my toaster, but if I find the breaker has been flipped, when I tell the story to people that's going to be the explanation I use.
A research biologist can personally believe in supernatural cause and effect, but their profession has nothing to do with it.