RE: Evolution/Creation debate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/12/2014 5:46:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
Since Evolution doesn't work, please explain antibiotic resistance of previously vulnerable diseases and bacteria? I'm quite interested in a valid alternative explanation.
For the same reason some humans have natural immunity to some diseases and others don't.
quote:

That evolution doesn't work for you may have to do with you are living only a single lifetime. Evolution required reproduction of a Lot of generations. Fewer than we used to think before evidence of 'Punctuated evolution' became known, and a LOOOOT more during more stable environmental conditions.
That's pretty funny, thanks.



Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/12/2014 5:47:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83


quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

Since Evolution doesn't work, please explain antibiotic resistance of previously vulnerable diseases and bacteria? I'm quite interested in a valid alternative explanation.
That evolution doesn't work for you may have to do with you are living only a single lifetime. Evolution required reproduction of a Lot of generations. Fewer than we used to think before evidence of 'Punctuated evolution' became known, and a LOOOOT more during more stable environmental conditions.


it's futile even ask becuase the answer would always be "god will"
And I didn't use "God's will" once.



Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/12/2014 6:08:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
As usual, you're totally out of the loop.
;-)

Rule for once took a position which actually exists (I think hell may have frozen over):
quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100119092832.htm
Insect colonies operate as 'superorganisms', new research finds


And regardless of whether the position is right or wrong an intellectually honest discussion on the topic looks nothing like your reply:
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
Talk about nonsense. You can "consider" the drones to be anything you want but in reality they are not a "organ" of the queen. If you called human children an organ of the parent, people would laugh you out of this thread. Yet you think doing so for insects makes it, okay.
;-)


Thanks for "re-posting" the website on superorganisms, if it was posted before I missed it. It was very interesting.

And you might be a bit premature in stating; "Insect colonies operate as 'superorganisms', new research finds", since that article say that the finding only suggests that.
;-)



vincentML -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/12/2014 6:51:51 PM)

quote:

And you might be a bit premature in stating; "Insect colonies operate as 'superorganisms', new research finds", since that article say that the finding only suggests that.

Well, isn't that a hoot? Research 'suggests' new avenues of knowledge and new possibilities. Oh my! What are we to make of that? Who would have ever expected scientific research to 'suggest" anything? What a concept. Oh, be careful. Better to ask some idiot 'know it all' in a tavern? There you will find the truth. Unbelievable [:-]



vincentML -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/12/2014 7:00:51 PM)

quote:

For the same reason some humans have natural immunity to some diseases and others don't.

Natural immunity is not so clearly understood. It may be genetic; maybe not. Our immune system is highly flexible and adaptive. Ask the natives of MesoAmerica who encountered the Spanish.

In humans there may be apparent racial differences, but it is always important to disentangle such factors as climate, nutrition, and economics from those that might be genetically determined. In some tropical and subtropical countries, for example, poliomyelitis is a rare clinical disease, though a common infection, but unimmunized visitors to such countries often contract serious clinical forms of the disease. The absence of serious disease in the residents is due not to natural resistance, however, but to resistance acquired after repeated exposure to poliovirus from infancy onward.




epiphiny43 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/12/2014 7:29:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
Since Evolution doesn't work, please explain antibiotic resistance of previously vulnerable diseases and bacteria? I'm quite interested in a valid alternative explanation.
For the same reason some humans have natural immunity to some diseases and others don't.

You don't understand development of antibiotic (Pesticide, herbicide, whatever) resistance or you didn't read the question. Yes, Some organisms of most populations will have more resistance to any toxic addition to their environment. (Natural gene variation in Most gene pools.) Precisely as Darwin suggested, the few outliers from the species norm will out reproduce the others and the populating gene pool will shift. Each generation of survivors will have a few 'outliers' with more resistance (mutations or unique recombinations of existing genes or controlling gene expression coding) to the toxin. With fast reproduction, (many bacteria have life cycles of 20 minutes or so) you get substantial change in resistance/toleration of any new factor in their environment in a few years or decades. 36 generations a day, 1296 or so generations a year, 12,960 a decade, it changes things. Notice your MD isn't prescribing penicillin these days for anything? I can't even pronounce the stuff I was on most of December on a IV drip to control a bacteria (Pseudomonas) that just laughs at what worked awhile back. My MD ensured my cooperation with his suggestions by pointing out he had No other drugs for Pseudomas if what was in my IV didn't work. Which got my attention.
Our problem is too many antibiotics are misused, stopped early when the full regimen would have killed all the infection (population). Or used for the wrong or not even present bacteria. Either works to select the few survivors with Any better resistance, who's offspring then go through the same process, again Darwinning the population for even better resistance. (Used correctly, bacteria resistance develops far slower, but is still inevitable.) Not so many years of this and the drug simply doesn't work anymore and Medicine has to search out a different antibiotic, or find a hetrodyning drug to add, that defeats the adaptional coping mechanism the bacteria evolved. Our biggest hope till whole new types of antibiotics (Different whole mechanisms of defeating the drug or assisting our immune system to deal with them.) are found. Nobody wants to go back to the Pre-WWII days of No working antibiotics. I'd have died before 45, or lost feet and legs, many earlier. All this is why the Public Health professionals are so upset about so many MDs massively over prescribing antibiotics for inappropriate diagnoses, primarily virur cold and influenza symptoms.



tweakabelle -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/12/2014 7:51:19 PM)

oops! wrong thread



Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/12/2014 9:33:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Creationism has, in recent decades, been thoroughly debunked except for those who are deeply entrenched in their religious beliefs.

Creationism is certainly a religious belief, but not all religious beliefs are Creationist. Creation, at its root, rests on the belief that the world we know arises from and depends upon a greater unseen reality. Understood in this sense, it is in no way at odds with modern Physics and does not require a "Being" somewhere blowing out bubble universes from his cosmic pipe, or for that matter even a beginning or an end.

What it does require, however, is an unseen reality that is rational, i.e., lawful and comprehensible, an unseen reality that is mind-like, because rationality is a property of mind. And therein lies the fundamental flaw in the argument from design, because a universe that is intrinsically lawful and comprehensible does not require a "designer" to make it so. Creationism is bad religion, but Physicalism is bad philosophy.

K.



Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/12/2014 10:15:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

how doesnt it work?
Whereas, personally, Evolution doesn't work for me, for my own reasons.
If you want to know why he thinks it doesn't work, you'll have to ask him.
;-)


Im actually asking for your reasoning...
if I wanted to ask "him" I would have said so[;)]
Okay, just wondering.
First, I kind of like Evolution, because other than war, it has driven science farther and faster than anything else.

I had always been told Evolution was a fact and had never given it much thought, after all on a day to day basis, whether Evolution is true or not, doesn't effect our lives much.

Then one day I was asked, how long did it take for birds to evolve? I said thousands of years. Were there predators during that time? Sure, there were predators. Then how did the "proto-birds" exist long enough develop flight? I thought although scientifically birds could have evolved, realistically, fat chance.

So I began to think a little bit more about Evolution.

What about bisexual reproduction? With asexual reproduction Evolution would seem reasonable but with bisexual reproduction that means every time evolution made an advance, it couldn't produce just one of a new type, it now had to produce two, male and female, within about 50 miles of each other and within several years of each other. Again scientifically it could happen but realistically, fat chance.

Finally, what about "the spark of life", it has always seemed a bit sketchy to me. Chemicals mixing in a mud puddle struck by lightening and suddenly life. Whereas human scientists working under laboratory conditions have not duplicated it and even if they do what would it prove? That it takes hard working intelligence to produce life? Wouldn't that be more proof a creator than of Evolution?

Now ask yourself, if scientists are one day able to show how every facet of Evolution works scientifically, does that show that Evolution is what happened or does it just show that it could have happened?

You asked why it doesn't work for me, these are some of the reasons why. I'm a bit pragmatic, I agree that science has worked hard to show how Evolution could have happened and I have enjoyed the science produced but in the real world, it seems you're betting on an awful lot of long shots.
;-)



Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/12/2014 10:24:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
Since Evolution doesn't work, please explain antibiotic resistance of previously vulnerable diseases and bacteria? I'm quite interested in a valid alternative explanation.
For the same reason some humans have natural immunity to some diseases and others don't.

You don't understand development of antibiotic (Pesticide, herbicide, whatever) resistance or you didn't read the question. Yes, Some organisms of most populations will have more resistance to any toxic addition to their environment. (Natural gene variation in Most gene pools.) Precisely as Darwin suggested, the few outliers from the species norm will out reproduce the others and the populating gene pool will shift. Each generation of survivors will have a few 'outliers' with more resistance (mutations or unique recombinations of existing genes or controlling gene expression coding) to the toxin. With fast reproduction, (many bacteria have life cycles of 20 minutes or so) you get substantial change in resistance/toleration of any new factor in their environment in a few years or decades. 36 generations a day, 1296 or so generations a year, 12,960 a decade, it changes things. Notice your MD isn't prescribing penicillin these days for anything? I can't even pronounce the stuff I was on most of December on a IV drip to control a bacteria (Pseudomonas) that just laughs at what worked awhile back. My MD ensured my cooperation with his suggestions by pointing out he had No other drugs for Pseudomas if what was in my IV didn't work. Which got my attention.
Our problem is too many antibiotics are misused, stopped early when the full regimen would have killed all the infection (population). Or used for the wrong or not even present bacteria. Either works to select the few survivors with Any better resistance, who's offspring then go through the same process, again Darwinning the population for even better resistance. (Used correctly, bacteria resistance develops far slower, but is still inevitable.) Not so many years of this and the drug simply doesn't work anymore and Medicine has to search out a different antibiotic, or find a hetrodyning drug to add, that defeats the adaptional coping mechanism the bacteria evolved. Our biggest hope till whole new types of antibiotics (Different whole mechanisms of defeating the drug or assisting our immune system to deal with them.) are found. Nobody wants to go back to the Pre-WWII days of No working antibiotics. I'd have died before 45, or lost feet and legs, many earlier. All this is why the Public Health professionals are so upset about so many MDs massively over prescribing antibiotics for inappropriate diagnoses, primarily virur cold and influenza symptoms.
So you didn't like my explanation, Great.
;-)



DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/12/2014 10:50:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
First, I kind of like Evolution, because other than war, it has driven science farther and faster than anything else.

I had always been told Evolution was a fact and had never given it much thought, after all on a day to day basis, whether Evolution is true or not, doesn't effect our lives much.

Then one day I was asked, how long did it take for birds to evolve? I said thousands of years. Were there predators during that time? Sure, there were predators. Then how did the "proto-birds" exist long enough develop flight? I thought although scientifically birds could have evolved, realistically, fat chance.

Archaeopteryx seems to indicate otherwise.

quote:

So I began to think a little bit more about Evolution.

What about bisexual reproduction? With asexual reproduction Evolution would seem reasonable but with bisexual reproduction that means every time evolution made an advance, it couldn't produce just one of a new type, it now had to produce two, male and female, within about 50 miles of each other and within several years of each other. Again scientifically it could happen but realistically, fat chance.

Huh? Bisexual reproduction developed in the ocean in organism that released sperm and egg cells into the water. Based on the species that do so alive today it is likely the original organism had both "male" and "female" sex organs and only later did specialization occur.

quote:

Finally, what about "the spark of life", it has always seemed a bit sketchy to me. Chemicals mixing in a mud puddle struck by lightening and suddenly life. Whereas human scientists working under laboratory conditions have not duplicated it and even if they do what would it prove? That it takes hard working intelligence to produce life? Wouldn't that be more proof a creator than of Evolution?

This is Abiogenesis. Unless you are arguing that life has always existed there was a beginning.

What I find odd about your arguments is how they are straight out of the standard creationist playbook.



epiphiny43 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/12/2014 10:52:55 PM)

The argument about birds doesn't hold. All a different phenotype needs is a slight survival advantage over the others of it's generation. If full flight were required for birds to survive and reproduce, thus further evolve, why are there so many flightless birds living and breeding quite successfully all through bird history and in most environments today. Early reptiles that could glide even a Bit better from high places or run up even slightly steeper trees or slopes (The two most investigated/promoted of current hypothesis of why birds evolved wings) has a Bit better chance of living long enough to raise offspring that carry it's new geno/phenotype. This doesn't have to be a giant change, and Evolution theory doesn't make these mutations or changes common in order for them to work. A common estimate is maybe 1% of gene mutations are favorable, even enough for the novel organism to survive long enough to a live birth, to say nothing of reproducing surviving offspring. But, there are a lot of years, and organisms.
Again, you don't understand asexual vs sexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction offers different development paths. It's more 'efficient' in ways but develops novel combinations far less often, an evolutionary advantage in changing environments. (Why Punctuated Evolution seems more common than gradual.) If an organism inherits a novel gene from one parent, (Even if that parent didn't have the gene itself, the gene changing after the parent matured or it's seed separated developmentally from the rest of the organism, which can happen as early as the blastula.) it normally expresses that gene Only if it isn't a recessive one opposed to a dominant gene. The organism's offspring are the same, a gene can enter a population and not be expressed till it finds a similar recessive from the other parent, in which case the offspring is now a new phenotype (body shape or function). Dominant genes express first and every generation, phenotype can be different between D/D and D/r genotype, or not. With sexual reproduction, the Dominant and recessive genes get stirred strongly every generation, particularly in multi-gene organisms. We have 21 separate ones, the possible genotypes from any male and female set of parents is Huge, Nature looking for that Sport what does better in today's world.
What changes gene pools is when a novel genotype ends up giving it's bearers any advantage in either the same or a developing (or just traveled to) novel environment over the previous genotype of it's species. Sickle cell mutations kept dying out everywhere they occurred in human populations as they normally disadvantaged the bearers. Except in Africa where Malaria decimated human groups. Sickle Cell prevents enough of the damage of Malaria parasites to give it's 'owners' a net survival advantage, so it's very common in C. Africa populations.



eulero83 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/12/2014 11:36:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83


quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

Since Evolution doesn't work, please explain antibiotic resistance of previously vulnerable diseases and bacteria? I'm quite interested in a valid alternative explanation.
That evolution doesn't work for you may have to do with you are living only a single lifetime. Evolution required reproduction of a Lot of generations. Fewer than we used to think before evidence of 'Punctuated evolution' became known, and a LOOOOT more during more stable environmental conditions.


it's futile even ask becuase the answer would always be "god will"
And I didn't use "God's will" once.



You never answered that question, too. And you just used the word "Creator" that's a synonim for god.



GotSteel -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/13/2014 12:29:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
And you might be a bit premature in stating; "Insect colonies operate as 'superorganisms', new research finds", since that article say that the finding only suggests that.
;-)


1. Um, that's not my statement, that's me quoting the title of the article. Which is why it was in quotes.

2. It's not only what the new research finds it's also what old research finds, I can easily link to research online going back to 1989:
quote:

Original: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27856005?uid=3739800&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103386955211
Natural selection has made the colony a vehicle for the survival of genes


And the research actually goes back to at least 1789.

3. Using words like "suggests" is how scientists tend to talk, you get that right? We're talking about a model ddescribing the facts, no matter how many hundreds of years of evidence there is words like "suggests" may crop up when scientists start talking about the model. However, that in no way negates the underlying evidence.



GotSteel -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/13/2014 12:43:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
For the same reason some humans have natural immunity to some diseases and others don't.

So you didn't like my explanation, Great.


Keep in mind that for students of biology both things will fall under the heading of evolution so when you state "same reason" without stating what alternative YOU believe it isn't even a matter of not liking your explanation. It's that you didn't actually give one.



joether -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/13/2014 1:50:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
Since Evolution doesn't work, please explain antibiotic resistance of previously vulnerable diseases and bacteria? I'm quite interested in a valid alternative explanation.

For the same reason some humans have natural immunity to some diseases and others don't.

An what is that reason exactly? If some humans have a 'natural immunity' what is within their body 'works' better than other humans?

We can go back and forth on this. Each reply of yours is simply another layer of bullshit cut down and asked yet another question. So I would like an extremely exact definition. The amount of evidence collected with the theory is such that your definition would have quite a few volumes of text to back it up.



vincentML -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/13/2014 4:21:11 AM)

quote:

What it does require, however, is an unseen reality that is rational, i.e., lawful and comprehensible, an unseen reality that is mind-like, because rationality is a property of mind.

How is this not a form of anthropomorphism? How does this not attribute human characteristics to some 'unseen reality?' How is this different from proclaiming the existence of a god?



Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/13/2014 4:38:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Archaeopteryx seems to indicate otherwise.
It could indicate a lot of things, tell me what does it seem to indicate to you?
quote:

Huh? Bisexual reproduction developed in the ocean in organism that released sperm and egg cells into the water. Based on the species that do so alive today it is likely the original organism had both "male" and "female" sex organs and only later did specialization occur.
I wasn't talking about when it was suppose to happen, I talking about the all those "specializations" that that were supposed to happen after. As I said; after the development of bisexual reproduction "every time evolution made an advance, it couldn't produce just one of a new type, it now had to produce two, male and female, within about 50 miles of each other and within several years of each other". That would mean that would have to happen thousands, if not millions of times to get to where we are to day. Maybe you think that is reasonable but it seems highly unlikely to be.
quote:

This is Abiogenesis. Unless you are arguing that life has always existed there was a beginning.
Call it what you like but yes, there was a beginning. I thought that was part of what we were discussing. You seem to believe the beginning happened in an electrified mud puddle by its self and I believe that it took a little more intelligent design than that.
quote:

What I find odd about your arguments is how they are straight out of the standard creationist playbook.
Although I do believe in creation, I am not a Creationist, Creationism has a set core of beliefs, much of which I don't have much truck with, such as the earth being only five thousand years old.

As for your finding it odd, should I find it odd that some of your arguments are straight out of the Evolutionist playbook?
;-)



farglebargle -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/13/2014 5:00:45 AM)

" Evolutionist playbook?"

We call them "Textbooks". You READ them.

e.g.: Biology by Miller and Levine: http://www.millerandlevine.com/macaw/chapter/toc.html



Moonhead -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/13/2014 5:25:45 AM)

The Panda's Thumb by Stephen Jay Gould is well worth a look as well, particularly in this context.



Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625