The missing link (268)
OK
slightly off the thread but here is something that i feel is important in this debate.
Scientific creationism is 100% wrong. So-called "scientific" creationists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data. Their ideas are based on religious dogma, and their approach is simply to attack evolution. The types of arguments they use fall into several categories: distortions of scientific principles (the second law of thermodynamics argument), straw man versions of evolution (the "too improbable to evolve by chance" argument), dishonest selective use of data (the declining speed of light argument) appeals to emotion or wishful thinking ("I don't want to be related to an ape"), appeals to personal incredulity ("I don't see how this could have evolved"), dishonestly quoting scientists out of context (Darwin's comments on the evolution of the eye) and simply fabricating data to suit their arguments (Gish's "bullfrog proteins").
Most importantly, scientific creationists do not have a testable, scientific theory to replace evolution with. Even if evolution turned out to be wrong, I am it would simply be replaced by another scientific theory. Creationists do not conduct scientific experiments, nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Much of their output is "preaching to the choir."
slightly off the thread but here is something that i feel is important in this debate.
Scientific creationism is 100% wrong. So-called "scientific" creationists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data. Their ideas are based on religious dogma, and their approach is simply to attack evolution. The types of arguments they use fall into several categories: distortions of scientific principles (the second law of thermodynamics argument), straw man versions of evolution (the "too improbable to evolve by chance" argument), dishonest selective use of data (the declining speed of light argument) appeals to emotion or wishful thinking ("I don't want to be related to an ape"), appeals to personal incredulity ("I don't see how this could have evolved"), dishonestly quoting scientists out of context (Darwin's comments on the evolution of the eye) and simply fabricating data to suit their arguments (Gish's "bullfrog proteins").
Most importantly, scientific creationists do not have a testable, scientific theory to replace evolution with. Even if evolution turned out to be wrong, I am it would simply be replaced by another scientific theory. Creationists do not conduct scientific experiments, nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Much of their output is "preaching to the choir."
------ This thread is Archived ------
Fair enough, but there is no "both sides of the argument". An argument must have two sides in order to be an argument, and in order for one side to even be a "side" it must have a stance based in reality and evidence.
All the evidence lies with evolution, and there is simply no evidence against it.
Sorry, beliefs just don't matter when put up against facts.
All the evidence lies with evolution, and there is simply no evidence against it.
Sorry, beliefs just don't matter when put up against facts.
------ This thread is Archived ------
wonderworker: Not long ago it was inappropriate to speak of Evolution as a "driven" process.
Just random mutations.
Now it is acceptable to describe environmental factors in terms of "stage-setting"
To call natural history the work of an obscure,indescribable intelligence is just another expression of the ontological argument.
Existence implies God.
Ubiquity.
Mathematics.
Not Christian Fundamentalism.The aforementioned God is as-you-like-him.
Just random mutations.
Now it is acceptable to describe environmental factors in terms of "stage-setting"
To call natural history the work of an obscure,indescribable intelligence is just another expression of the ontological argument.
Existence implies God.
Ubiquity.
Mathematics.
Not Christian Fundamentalism.The aforementioned God is as-you-like-him.
First evolution is not a driven process. There is no driving force behind it, nor does it have a goal.
Second existence does NOT imply god. YOU infer god from existence.
HUGE differnce.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Good point. Dogma doesn't stack up well against scientific evidence, does it? 
groovyme: Fair enough, but there is no "both sides of the argument". An argument must have two sides in order to be an argument, and in order for one side to even be a "side" it must have a stance based in reality and evidence.
All the evidence lies with evolution, and there is simply no evidence against it.
Sorry, beliefs just don't matter when put up against facts.
All the evidence lies with evolution, and there is simply no evidence against it.
Sorry, beliefs just don't matter when put up against facts.
------ This thread is Archived ------
katt1017: I knew I should have bought that Serbian to English dictionary.The great designer is close to what I believe. Such an amazing system as the one we live in does not really seem like it could all come down to the dumb luck of random chance.
It IS an amazing system but if there is a designer. He is an idiot.
A powerful idiot but an idiot none the less. (cruel as well)
There are so many examples of nature being inefficient, and nonsensical.
Harmful or inefficient mutations can pass on in the allele if they do not affect the survival chances.
Take the eye for example, it has a blind spot and it is designed backwards and upside down. Easy to see WHY this is, through evolution from a light sensitive dot, but if it is a designer creating it in its current form? He clearly isn't an engineer.
Doesn't take a genius to see this.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Faithfulness: I had a science teacher in high school that made a good point by asking a very good question. He explained evolution, Darwinism and the Big Bang Theory. But the question he asked was this. Who created the Big Bang to begin with?
This is a question that is unanswered but doesn't imply a magical man. What you SHOULD be doing is looking for the real answer instead of pretending that you know already.
MAYBE what you should do is apply that question to your god. If he made everything, who made him?
If a god can be without a creator, why not an infinitely simpler thing like a universe?
In response to: The point being the Big Bang could not have happen from nothing.
No one said that it did.
In response to: Something had to be there before the Big Bang could happen.
Yip, the problem is that it is impossible to see what it was for sure, because we have no frame of reference for anything that happened before.
In response to: Through evolution you have only adaptations within a species. No way could the DNA change so much in one species to form a completely different species. Good example of evolution.. a tadpole changing into a frog.
Evolution is a tadpole to a frog?
Clearly you have no idea what evolution is.
The tadpole to frog is merely metamophosis, and has nothing to do with evolution (except that it was an evolved ability)
Evolution is a community speciation, not an individual happening.
------ This thread is Archived ------
groovyme: Fair enough, but there is no "both sides of the argument". An argument must have two sides in order to be an argument, and in order for one side to even be a "side" it must have a stance based in reality and evidence.
All the evidence lies with evolution, and there is simply no evidence against it.
Sorry, beliefs just don't matter when put up against facts.
All the evidence lies with evolution, and there is simply no evidence against it.
Sorry, beliefs just don't matter when put up against facts.
I wholeheartedly agree
------ This thread is Archived ------
i agree, given the awful condtions in which many people live on "its" Earth and given the many painful and regressive genetic diseases that are part of "its" design how cruel a game is this "creator" playing or has "it" lost control?
I understand the free will argument but how does this apply to those with cystic fibrosis or multiple sclerosis. To those who have a deep faith in God are such diseases genetic errors based on a creator's work or are they just down to unfortunate chance?
remember some genetic errors can also be advantageous!!!
I understand the free will argument but how does this apply to those with cystic fibrosis or multiple sclerosis. To those who have a deep faith in God are such diseases genetic errors based on a creator's work or are they just down to unfortunate chance?
remember some genetic errors can also be advantageous!!!
------ This thread is Archived ------
wonderworker: Not long ago it was inappropriate to speak of Evolution as a "driven" process.
Just random mutations.
Now it is acceptable to describe environmental factors in terms of "stage-setting"
To call natural history the work of an obscure,indescribable intelligence is just another expression of the ontological argument.
Existence implies God.
Ubiquity.
Mathematics.
Not Christian Fundamentalism.The aforementioned God is as-you-like-him.
Just random mutations.
Now it is acceptable to describe environmental factors in terms of "stage-setting"
To call natural history the work of an obscure,indescribable intelligence is just another expression of the ontological argument.
Existence implies God.
Ubiquity.
Mathematics.
Not Christian Fundamentalism.The aforementioned God is as-you-like-him.
No random mutation can get you thing that work . Its like you are jumbling a meaningful sentence in radom way to get another more meaningful sentence . Mutation happens , what trigger the mutation is still a mystry . there is some intellignece which forsee the enviromental change and prepare an organism to cope up with that change make it more adaptive through mutation . Mutation is arranged and intellignet driven and I wish to call that Intelligence" the God" . I am not confused here with the biblical version of the god .
------ This thread is Archived ------
bollywood: We are talking about mutations that makes thie evolution happen. cystic fibrosis mutuation or any other genetic disease are not same as that .though you call them mutation . Human DNA is not just a collection of Nuclic acids , they are code and language . If you need a language to be reconstrcted and have a more meaning full one the random mutation is of no help .if that is changed to bring in a benefit , its not mutation . I would call it "intelligent rearrangement" than call them mutation .cystic fibrosis mutuation or any other genetic disease are the result of random mutation which cannot bring the meaningful results.
What is the difference between a "Mutation" and a "Mutation",other than that some are not necessarily beneficial?Is there a different mechanism involved?
------ This thread is Archived ------
sophiasummer:
Its what ever you like for your life, to lead..does it spread? nice. Smile!
Its what ever you like for your life, to lead..does it spread? nice. Smile!
Sorry sweetie, but you have lost me.
------ This thread is Archived ------
bollywood: We are talking about mutations that makes thie evolution happen. cystic fibrosis mutuation or any other genetic disease are not same as that .though you call them mutation . Human DNA is not just a collection of Nuclic acids , they are code and language . If you need a language to be reconstrcted and have a more meaning full one the random mutation is of no help .if that is changed to bring in a benefit , its not mutation . I would call it "intelligent rearrangement" than call them mutation .cystic fibrosis mutuation or any other genetic disease are the result of random mutation which cannot bring the meaningful results.
Sorry, all mutuations are the same (ie changes in nucleic acids or chromosomes) They happen RANDOMLY some result in benifts to the individual but most are disadvantageous.
Help me to understand you view regarding "intelligent rearrangement" with regard to the arrival of the sickle cell anaemia gene. beneficial to some disaterous to others
------ This thread is Archived ------
theoldestdear: Sorry, all mutuations are the same (ie changes in nucleic acids or chromosomes) They happen RANDOMLY some result in benifts to the individual but most are disadvantageous.
Help me to understand you view regarding "intelligent rearrangement" with regard to the arrival of the sickle cell anaemia gene. beneficial to some disaterous to others
Help me to understand you view regarding "intelligent rearrangement" with regard to the arrival of the sickle cell anaemia gene. beneficial to some disaterous to others
All mutations are same at the end - Its just change in genetic material. Some are random Some are not random . Millions of species have evolved with features adaptable or requried to their very survival, deciding their genitic and physiological make up , these things are governed by a specific sequece of DNA and information contained in the very structure of that . These cannot be the prodcut of randomness . statistically its not possible at all. I dont know about the beneficial side of sickle cell amaemia . cant comment on it since I am not sure about it.
------ This thread is Archived ------
bollywood: All mutations are same at the end - Its just change in genetic material. Some are random Some are not random This is so muddled are they the same of different?.
Millions of species have evolved with features adaptable or requried to their very survival, deciding (no decision is ever made but selection occur) their genitic and physiological make up , these things are governed by a specific sequece of DNA and information contained in the very structure of that .
These cannot be the prodcut of randomness I am afriad all mutations are totally RANDOM.
statistically its not possible at all (oh yes it is show me your Maths).
I dont know about the beneficial side of sickle cell amaemia . cant comment on it since I am not sure about it.
those with sickle cell anaemia (the heterozygous form) have an immunity to Malaria thus survive and pass on the gene.Millions of species have evolved with features adaptable or requried to their very survival, deciding (no decision is ever made but selection occur) their genitic and physiological make up , these things are governed by a specific sequece of DNA and information contained in the very structure of that .
These cannot be the prodcut of randomness I am afriad all mutations are totally RANDOM.
statistically its not possible at all (oh yes it is show me your Maths).
I dont know about the beneficial side of sickle cell amaemia . cant comment on it since I am not sure about it.
------ This thread is Archived ------
google this
Using Statistics To Decipher Secrets Of Natural Mutation
Using Statistics To Decipher Secrets Of Natural Mutation
------ This thread is Archived ------
bollywood: No random mutation can get you thing that work . Its like you are jumbling a meaningful sentence in radom way to get another more meaningful sentence . Mutation happens , what trigger the mutation is still a mystry . there is some intellignece which forsee the enviromental change and prepare an organism to cope up with that change make it more adaptive through mutation . Mutation is arranged and intellignet driven and I wish to call that Intelligence" the God" . I am not confused here with the biblical version of the god .
Random mutations DO get you things that work. Not all the time of course, there are many that are not beneficial, and there are many that simply make very little difference.
But unless they affect survival chances of that being, they likely won't be passed on in any numbers that would affect the species.
It is only when a mutation turns out to be useful to survival that it spreads, and even this is over a very long period in time.
What triggers mutation? Biology my friend. Not everything is a carbon copy of the previous iteration. Some things develop slightly different than its predecessor and that is mutation.
You can pretend that it is an intelligence, but that only creates more problems than it solves.
Even then, THAT intelligence would have to evolved from a different form.
IF evolution was driven by intelligence, then it would be far more punctuated than it is, and it would be goal oriented. Evolution is simply not goal driven, or on a ladder model. It is just adaptation.
"But why?" would be the real question if there was a driving force behind it.
Why not just create the being perfect in the first place?
Hmmmm, why not think about that.
Evolution leaves behind signs from previous stages of speciation, and it can be quite cruel.
Evolution, to make it simple, works in exactly the way that we would figure it would if there were NO intelligence behind it.
------ This thread is Archived ------
bollywood: All mutations are same at the end - Its just change in genetic material. Some are random Some are not random . Millions of species have evolved with features adaptable or requried to their very survival, deciding their genitic and physiological make up , these things are governed by a specific sequece of DNA and information contained in the very structure of that . These cannot be the prodcut of randomness . statistically its not possible at all. I dont know about the beneficial side of sickle cell amaemia . cant comment on it since I am not sure about it.
ALL mutations are random.
Evolution is NOT directed or decided by DNA. It is a societal shift towards speciation, not an individual one.
As far as beneficial effect of something like sickle cell anemia goes, it doesn't have to be beneficial to be passed on in the allele. All it has to do is not be harmful to the chances of passing on the allele to the next generation.
If it kept people from producing progeny, then it might be evolved out of existence. Or be much more rare.
Get it?
------ This thread is Archived ------
The simple answer is that there is no missing link, and anyone who says that there is, or tries to debunk evolution based on it, only reveals his lack of understanding about evolution.
------ This thread is Archived ------
groovyme: First evolution is not a driven process. There is no driving force behind it, nor does it have a goal.
Second existence does NOT imply god. YOU infer god from existence.
HUGE differnce.
Second existence does NOT imply god. YOU infer god from existence.
HUGE differnce.
That's what I said.
Ontological argument equates existence itself with God.Not an inference, a suspect equating.A spurious proof.
Read what I said.Then you wont need to use my own point to refute me.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Salami, Salami, Baloney
Reality Check
Icebergs Still Around
Nature
rarotonga
1830's Music
everything is changing
How far is too far?
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
What I Lack In Vocabulary
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
A lot of mind-changing on neanderthal information now too.....
Science is like this. One theory only holds until the next one is proven or the last one is discounted.........
It is always ongoing. I never dismiss any of it as irrelevant or not possible, no matter how outlandish it sounds. I think there are little bits of truth in all of it.........