Denial of evolution

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by river-wind, Jul 23, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    As has been pointed out to you several times now, you don't.

    And there is good reason for that: it is a difficult concept to grasp. It isn't easy. Everyone from Stephen Gould to every Nobel Prize-winning ID endorser ot half the biology teachers in the US has made errors in reasoning about it. The people who cobble together Creationist mistakes are not stupid - many are proven intellectuals in their own arenas. A lot of them are physicists or mathematicians or physical chemists, who underestimate biology in general.
    That's a mistake, no matter how much thought went into it. And yes, to get to where you are making serious mistakes does take a lot of thought, as with any subtle, profound, and counter-intuitive theory - the trick now is to not stop thinking.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Just think about what i am writing, you dont have to believe it and it has nothing to do with religion just some things i think about. The key meaining is out there waiting to be found and if i find it i then John99 will be famous.

    i am not likening changes in evolution to changes in landscape. You need to be able to follow a few simple posts to see thats not what i am saying at all.

    You dont seem to understand that the bacteria of today are what? BACTERIA. Just because some bacteria can be shown to build\develop resistance to other organisms (in order to survive) does not show evolution from ape to human or whatever came before. In fact it serves the opposite purpose, it may not disprove it (to you) but it opens up many questions.

    Hipparchia, you dont seem to understand what i am saying. The first fish on the planet were loaded with bacteria, just as living organisms today are loaded with bacteria. What do these bacteria do? the same exact thing they always did. Which is to sustain life.

    really? what different bahaviors? do you understand that a fish living today contains the same organisms as one living 100,000 years ago and one living a billion years ago and if there were fish 100 billion years ago then they were also the same. This is a simple fact of life, you cannot have one without the other.

    Virtually means for all practical purposes, thats all. If you are claiming this to be a lie then show me where this is wrong. They are pervasive but at the end of the day the remain for all practical purposes the same.

    http://www.earthtoday.net/news/viewpr.html?pid=21110

    If you are waiting for them ^ to change to something entirely different you will be disappointed because that will never happen.

    What you are calling nonsense are just things that you dont understand.

    Do you want bacteria to evolve as EVERYTHING else supposedly has? If that is what you want than life is over. We are still in the frankenstein stage of understanding life. And all we are left with of our non-human human ancestors are pictures and cute names.

    And where are they? Drawings in a text book, made of clay in a museum? Why are they intermediary species and not just different species and like i said where are they? They are all dead because every human alive today is human, if we changed from an organism that was outrageously different from what we are today then you tell me what will we look like, what will we be millions of years from now? will we have nine arms? giant heads? nine feet tall? two feet tall?

    Well i dont think we are going to change in any significant way and guess what...by its very nature evolution cannot stop, certainly not with all the changes that would have had to take place throughout the years but we dont see any changes from one species to another, what we see are species dying out.

    And do you think calling apes our ancestors has helped them? Because one day they may be gone too but up until that time they will not change into something different.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    So why cant i just have fun. I doesnt mean anything to me just if i can prove everyone wrong then that is a great accomplishment. What i want to hear from are people who agree with me and support me.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, they weren't the same - certainly not a billion years ago when there were no fish, and probably not 100 million years ago when "fish" were much different.

    Be my guest. Just don't go around saying evolutionary theory is easy to understand, and then claiming that all the ancestors of modern fish had to be modern fish, and the persistence of bacteria today shows no bacterial descendents have evolved into soemthing else over the eons.
     
  8. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Are you guys like, arguing about the problem of how eukaryotes evolved, from bacteria?
    Which they did, I guess.
     
  9. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
  10. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Eukaryote Evolution: Engulfed by Speculation

    Thats pretty powerful.

    http://scienceweek.com/2007/sw070622.htm
     
  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
  12. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    I think the argument goes something like:

    Concluding the existence of some sort of irreducible "eukaryotic nature", then ensues from certain corners of the room.
     
  13. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Is Vkothii right? It's basically: We can't figure it out right now their for god did it???
     
  14. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Erm, I'm not sure if you're implying that the above is my effort. Why are you asking if "I'm" right?

    You might have noticed it's about some dude called James Lake, and what he thinks about the problem.
    Then the IDers appear to think, that because he says the eukaryotes are a promordial line all by themselves, this supports their theories about irreducibility.

    Hell, I don't even know what irreducibility is.
    But then I've been reducing things for a fair while now - pretty much from since I could take things apart.

    Edit:
    This post now refers to a non-existent previous post, which was censored by the mod team here at sciforums.
    This censorship was both arbitrary, and apparently based on prejudice of some kind. No explanation is needed - this isn't a democracy is it?

    But the reference to one James Lake (who I've never heard of) survives.
    And a comment about irreducibility, which is of course the mainstay of the ID argument.

    But that's religion and philosophy, we're meant to be discussing something else. Evolution, or something.

    Edit2: The above edit is now rendered redundant, by the reappearance of said post.
    There goes the neighbourhood.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2008
  15. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    I meant is your interpretation right.

    I don't see the problem though: eukaryotes evolve nucleus perhaps though parasitism or symbiosis, then they engulfed the ancestors mitochondria and some chloroplasts and began a symbiotic merger with those as well, it explains why mitochondria and chloroplast have their own genomes, the nucleus can be explained though its own Endosymbiotic theory.
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Vkothii, please keep the discussion about biology, not religion or philosophy.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    For what to have occurred ?
    So you agree with the author there that we should return to the more prosaic hypotheses of the 90s, for the evolutionary origins of eukaryotes ?
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2008
  18. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    I think the membrane structures and the different ways they appear in the prokaryotes - which have a double lipid bilayer, and the eukaryotes, where the inner bilayer is a nuclear membrane, and the outer is the cell membrane, with a lot of stuff in between, are an interesting subject.

    Eukaryotes have populated the space between the two bilayers - the dual membrane structure that prokaryotes still have. And the proteins expressed on either membrane by the eukaryote line are more diverse.

    The endosymbiont hypothesis is that something got between the two layers, and survived, eventually creating an environment (the cytoplasm) that maintains the nuclear "organism".
    I think it's got something to do with membrane structure, and how a eukaryote cell, minus the cytoplasm, looks like a kind of bacterium with a double-layer cell wall.

    I think the protozoans and protista are where some of the clues are, and the common genetic ancestry of the fungi, plant, and animal cell lines.
     
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Vkothii

    Well not all prokaryotes have dual lipid membranes (most don't including Archaea), but it is a nice theory anyways.
     
  20. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Any eukaryogenesis theory needs to include the transition from circular to linear forms of DNA, and the telomere proteins. And mitosis, the spindle proteins, the whole cell division mechanism, and how that's different to the earlier versions of replication.

    The evolution and ubiquity of actin and all the proteins related to cell support and transport, that are found in archea, eubacteria, and eukarya, a real general view of the details of cellular architecture and the building blocks that have "emerged", as it were, from the proteome space.
     
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Easy: we are missing all the stages between archea and eubacteria, either they became extinct by being outmoded or by catastrophic events, its not like we will l find them fossilized well enough to analyze their cellular morphology, the best we can do is study genetic fossils, which in its self is not easy to do because of all the rewriting that has gone on.
     
  22. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Not all of them and cetainly not entirely. I posted them intending it be general reference to give the readers a better understanding of terms used throughout the thread.
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Anyone with interest, knowledge and time is requested to fine tune, edit and add to the wiki article on [ENC]Evolution Denial[/ENC]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page