Denial of evolution II

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Mar 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    The design is corrupted. To be incoruptable one would have to perfect or inmortal. A programer may make a flawless system but that doesn't mean a hacker can't introduce a virus designed to corrupt that system.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    OK, thanks. Now I understand the Garden of Eden story. God made man perfect and repoduction was to be only by cloning, but then Satin came along in the form of a snake* and showed Adam what he could do with his penis and Eve. Sexual reproduction "corrupted" God's perfect design. - Allowed me to have big teeth and a small mouth. (Or other mismatches controlled by separate genes.)

    -----------------
    *God only knows from where as a perfect God could not make or tolerate evil.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2009
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pteriax Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    Well, I will reply tomorrow I hope to what everyone has posted - I'm just too tired tonight. After my post tomorrow, I will be away until Saturday night, and will get caught up at that time. Thanks everyone for the input.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    There you go - you have made the basic observation. Now, about the biosphere, with its intricate and elaborate constructions? - - same situation.
    Such as, for example, the sun - about 1300 watts per square meter blasting into the biosphere of the earth, on the daylight side, for billions of years. Or a hydrothermal vent, volcanic upwelling, etc. With such huge inputs of energy, great complexity is easily obtained through "naturalistic means".

    Oh, son, - - - - no, he doesn't.

    I've never seen the slightest evidence that anyone in a church knows any more about God than the average house cat knows.
    The "corruption" is considerably more of the design as we have it now, by weight and by structural significance and by informational content, than the immortal or perfect aspects - if indeed any such remain. We appear to be all hack and no angelus.
     
  8. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    No, Billy, you do not understand.
    The original Sin had nothing to do with reproduction.

    And while I understand your angst of the toleration of evil, understand if he had not allowed this to play out according to the rebel's accusations, you nor any of us would be here right now because they would have been executed immediately.

    Consider this a trial.
    You want to live your life without God. You're being allowed to.

    This world, it isn't a product of God's rulership, It's all your responsibility.
    That's the nature of sedition, rebellion, treason...chaos, death, destruction a ruined planet.

    It's a stay of excution.
    I for one appreciate it.
     
  9. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Well if you let a lap top stay infected with spyware and virus for 6,000 what would you expect? A smooth running operation system?

    ...you know what an IT person would say for the solution.
     
  10. Pteriax Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    How bout UN-conventional creationist...

    Apologies where due, you all are not the only folks to deal with idiots a lot. I over-reacted to his short, seemingly baseless answers. I retract any insults on the hope that if he replies again, he will explain his points more thoroughly.

    No, I do understand that. But the surroundings quickly cool down. The energy is lost to the chemicals, not to the universe. Perhaps my own phrasing wasn't that clear. Yes, we have an equilibrium due to energy from the sun, but that sun is a part of a larger closed system. Sorry, the chemical reaction bit is more linked to abiogenesis than to evolution. I believe the two processes are linked, but many here do not. I just feel that there could be a biological "theory of everything" that links all processes somehow. We just are not far enough along to see it yet. So, sorry if my whole thing here sounded way off base.
     
  11. Pteriax Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    No, you misunderstand. Those would be breeds of the same species. The mule would be a new species, not a breed of existing one. The sterility and gender bias are indicators of this. I am not saying that this alone disproves evolution by any means, it just seems like a problem to me.
     
  12. Pteriax Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    The supernatural world leaves its fingerprints on the natural world from time to time. The only real problem is that it is often very subjective.

    Yes, about this quote, you are correct. I was speaking in general terms.

    If it can go back and forth, then why would it always seem to move forwards to a 'destination'? How can random set a goal? I mean, I has seen explanations like this on several specific creature trees, and they seem to make sense, but I seem to always find a greater amount that does not make sense. Yes, it makes the most sense to most people who study it, but that doesn't make it correct.

    Let me use this one as an example: it's easy to say a horse developed enamel and extra toes at the same time, right? But why do we never see a creature (now or in the fossil record) with extraneous parts? Where is the creature with half of an echolocation system in place? I know the easy way out is to say there are creatures with flipper-feet; but that itself serves a specific purpose - a creature simply spends a lot of time in water and a lot out, like a seal. That is not a half evolved creature, its parts serve a very specific purpose, and not to gradually become aquatic or to 'crawl from the sea'. Maybe the few critters that we can imagine up a real good reason and sequence for evolution just look that way - you know, like a coincidence. There seems to be no good reason for most animals to evolve. Plus there is a huge balance in nature. One creature cannot evolve simultaneously with several others, each to benefit each other. How could a creature mutate and keep the mutation when it only helps something else? That seems counter-intuitive to the evolutionary process.

    Well, yes and no. We are like tadpoles in a puddle. There is a bigger and better world out there that we can reach one day. So, we can have effect on the world, without it really being our true 'home'.
     
  13. Pteriax Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    I believe that there is a way to decide which is true. Not an easy way, and not a way that you can use to prove it to all mankind, but to 'find the truth for yourself' is possible. You can use other's words as a guide, but investigate the claims before you take it to heart.

    How can you know, beyond an educated guess, that these factors accelerate evolution (or even contribute to it)? Couldn't the prea just be an inbred version of the guinea?

    Well, no, God did not "keep changing his wristwatch" at least not as such. As I said before, the universe expanded at a relativistic rate, dilating time. Each 'day' for God has been shorter and shorter for the universe, as the expansion has slowed, easing the time dilation. So the first 'day' of creation would have been over a billion years long to a person or object expanding with the universe. So God never actually changed his perception of time or the length of a day, but our day in relation to his day has started to balance out a bit, so to speak. I have the exact timeline written down somewhere, I'll try to find it for you...

    I will need to post the details later on, possibly this weekend. I will get back to you on this, the notes are just jumbled up with a bunch of other stuff and I haven't got the time to dig them out right this minute.
     
  14. Pteriax Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    I think I answered the rest of your post in my replies to the others. If not, post something specific and I will reply to it then.

    Honestly, I would say to this comment that you didn't look very hard. But then I have no idea what you are basing this conclusion on. Seems like a blanket statement based in frustration, anger, or both - at people in a church or the church in general; likely stemming from a severe lack of understanding - possibly on both sides.
     
  15. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714
    You didn't understand the point that was being made.
     
  16. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    How is that any different from the biosphere?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

    That's probably the best experiment in support of evolution. I'm curious; do you think bacteria developing a mechanism to absorb citrate evolution?

    Genetically, humans and chimps may be quite similar, but the qualitative differences are huge.

    I guess you can thank God for sloppy polymerases, huh?

    But this begs the question; as the perfect creator of everything, why design a system that includes spyware and viruses?
     
  17. tuberculatious Banned Banned

    Messages:
    987

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That is absolutely true. Moreover, the difference between chimps and bonobos is even smaller.
     
  18. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    You talk about relativity as if you respected science, but yet deny the evidence about evolution that the same scientific method has revealed. Strange.
     
  19. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Because of selection. The environment (the sun, the air pressure, other animals) selects for certain combinations of features. Imagine if you had a jar full of jellybeans, but you didn't like the brown ones, and didn't eat them. After some time, all the beans in the jar would be brown.


    Why would evolution ever select for an extraneous body part, though?

    Think of it like this- if the whales went extinct tomorrow, who would be at a better advantage to take their place as huge, marine mammals, seals and otters, with in between organs, or animals without any flippers?

    Gross anatomical features are huge investments of resources, so shouldn't be expected to pop up willy-nilly overnight. They will most likely appear in stages, getting bigger or small, much like with the horse examples, or from dinosaur to bird. Those horse fossils are an awesome example of change over time.

    Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency over time. So as long as selection continues to weed out mutants, evolution does not occur. However, given small enough population sizes or big enough environmental chnages (meteor impacts, volcanic eruption), you get changes in allele frequency independent of selection. Accidents are a huge driving force behind evolution.

    Given our very narrow time frame, most animals shouldn't have a whole lot of reason, or time, to evolve. But given the mass extinction event happening, we can expect animals to move into niches that they previously couldn't compete for, and change to fill it.

    Why not? Mutualisms exist all over the place. The bacteria in your stomach right now, for instance. Or the mitochondria in your cells.

    Many mutualisms are hypothesized to have started as either a commensalism or parastism. Some are simply luck. The hyperaggressive Pseudomyrmex, a genus of ant that lives in bullhorn acacias, defends the plant, and the plant gives it a place to live. One could imagine that the ant merely lived on the plant and ate bugs there. The plant gained a slight benefit from the ant picking off bugs, and the ants had a place to live. A mutation in the plant maybe led it produce some food for the ants, or a better place to live, so the ants did better and killed more bugs. Over time, they developed to be almost completely dependent on each other.

    I think you missed the point.
     
  20. tuberculatious Banned Banned

    Messages:
    987
    I think relativity has been proven to be wrong. Or not correct in all cases. Which equals wrong.
     
  21. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Not correct at a quantum level, but proven correct by experiment at larger scales. Don't forget, even Newton's Laws of motion are still used to calculate the orbits of satellites.
     
  22. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    No, it means it's incomplete, not wrong.
     
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Saquist Please correct your post 446. You are quoting iceaure's last text of his post 444, not me.
    -----------
    Pteriax In post 447 you say:
    "we have an equilibrium due to energy from the sun..."

    I know what you mean but it is far from "equilibrium." It is quasi- steady state. I am not trying to nitpick, but help you as these two are very different concepts but are often confused. Quite possibly you already know that, so perhaps I am only requesting a little more care in your choice of words.

    One of the main requirements for equilibrium in a system is that all parts of the system are at the same temperature; for example of what may be equilibrium, consider 0 degree C ice floating in 0 degree water with 0 degree air above both and their container. (I said "may be" because if the ice is bobbing up and down in the water, there is no equilibrium. There could be other reasons, for example internal stresses within the ice. Real equilibrium is quite rare.)
    ---------------
    To Pteriax & Fraggle here is something for you to puzzle over and discuss related to post 448 reply:

    There is an arctic bird (I bet Fraggle can name it.) that is found in every arctic land, except Greenland and Iceland, I think. The ones that live in the Eastern most part of Canada cannot mate with the ones that live in the Western most parts of Norway*, yet the ones in Norway can mate with those in Sweden, and they with the ones in western Russia and they with the ones in Eastern Russian, and they with the ones in western Canada. I.e. this species of birds is like a cut ring in their distribution - Each region can mate with those on either side but the ones on one side of the gap cannot mate with those on the other side of the North Atlantic gap. That would make you think there are two different species, but there is no division line between them.
    -----------------
    *It has been long time since I read about them, but as I recall it is an actual physical problem. I.e. his will not fit in hers or something like that.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page