RE: Evolution/Creation debate

RE: Evolution/Creation debate (Full Version)

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

Message

EdBowie -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 11:13:14 AM)
So evolution is a form of cancer! [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr What causes genetic mutation? I realize that man can act upon genes and change them but, before we could, what caused them? There are numerous natural mutagens. Chemicals (both naturally occurring and man made) can be mutagens. Radionuclides can be mutagens. (remember all the cool science fiction from the 50's?) UV light from the sun is the most common mutagen. There are dozens more.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 11:14:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie So evolution is a form of cancer! [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr What causes genetic mutation? I realize that man can act upon genes and change them but, before we could, what caused them? There are numerous natural mutagens. Chemicals (both naturally occurring and man made) can be mutagens. Radionuclides can be mutagens. (remember all the cool science fiction from the 50's?) UV light from the sun is the most common mutagen. There are dozens more. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 11:19:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you made a bunch of claims about a subject which you know nothing about. Well then I'm sure you'll be happy to quote them so people won't think you're just making shit up. I'll get the popcorn. K. You claimed this quote quote: [color=#0000cc size=2]Recent research results make it seem improbable that there could have been single basal forms for many of the highest categories of evolutionary differentiation (kingdoms, phyla, classes). The universal tree of life probably had many roots. Facts contributing to this perception include the phylogenetically widespread occurrences of: horizontal transfers of plasmids, viral genomes, and transposons; multiple genomic duplications; the existence and properties of large numbers of gene families and protein families; multiple symbioses; broad-scale hybridizations; and multiple homoplasys. From an article titled "The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay" As support for your claim that there was no not a single universal ancestor to all life. Actually the fact that all that stuff occurs proves that all life derived from the same source. Genes rely on the transcription/translation machinery in the cell which relies upon the completely arbitrary codon to amino acid correspondence which has no reason to be precisely that way to work. Therefore that ribosome/mRNA structure which is common to all life is something that occurred once and would not have occurred multiple times in the same way.

Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 11:30:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you made a bunch of claims about a subject which you know nothing about. Well then I'm sure you'll be happy to quote them so people won't think you're just making shit up. You claimed this quote [...] As support for your claim that there was no not a single universal ancestor to all life. You're just making shit up. I never claimed there wasn't a single universal ancestor to all life. I just said I didn't think it was a lock, and when you called me ignorant I cited two respected sources reflecting the view that the question is tenable. Now please, get a hobby or something. K.

EdBowie -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 11:34:32 AM)
'Deliberately obtuse' would be the person who is dishonestly pretending that they forgot what the bright yellow smileys mean. Go troll for your ignorance mongering and pointless arguments somewhere else quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie So evolution is a form of cancer! [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr What causes genetic mutation? I realize that man can act upon genes and change them but, before we could, what caused them? There are numerous natural mutagens. Chemicals (both naturally occurring and man made) can be mutagens. Radionuclides can be mutagens. (remember all the cool science fiction from the 50's?) UV light from the sun is the most common mutagen. There are dozens more. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 11:36:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you made a bunch of claims about a subject which you know nothing about. Well then I'm sure you'll be happy to quote them so people won't think you're just making shit up. You claimed this quote [...] As support for your claim that there was no not a single universal ancestor to all life. You're just making shit up. I never claimed there wasn't a single universal ancestor to all life. I just said I didn't think it was a lock, and when you called me ignorant I cited two respected sources reflecting the view that the question is tenable. Now please, get a hobby or something. K. You seem to have just made shit up quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Frankly, the notion that all life evolved from a single common ancestor has always struck me as likely to be no less a made up story than Genesis.

Paladinagain -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 11:38:42 AM)
can anyone give an actual example of evolution? You know, an actual incedent where something gave birth to something else? I wonder why that is?

Alpha897 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 11:39:03 AM)
You need to understand that in order for new species to arise, there must be an addition to the genetic material. What you are describing is a variation on the species not the development of a new one.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 11:40:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Paladinagain can anyone give an actual example of evolution? You know, an actual incedent where something gave birth to something else? I wonder why that is? Your mother and you

vincentML -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 11:40:52 AM)
quote: Sexual selection almost certainly does lead to new species. Consider a population of animals. Some of the females prefer to mate with the males that have red pigment while another segment of the female population prefers blue pigment. Those two populations could easily split into new species. Right. Of course variation is enhanced by sexual selection but speciation requires in theory some form of environmental separation of the variants for a long enough time period that further changes would inhibit the production of fertile progeny between the two populations. But you said evolution was a fact that we have observed in the field. I can't think of any examples. I put it to you that Evolution is a Theory not a fact.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 11:42:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alpha897 You need to understand that in order for new species to arise, there must be an addition to the genetic material. What you are describing is a variation on the species not the development of a new one. You need to understand that new genetic material arises all the time if you and your parents got sequenced you would find that there were several new mutations in your genome. Even in a static environment with no selective pressure drift over many generations would produce enough change to produce a new species.

Kirata -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 11:42:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata You're just making shit up. I never claimed there wasn't a single universal ancestor to all life. I just said I didn't think it was a lock... You seem to have just made shit up quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Frankly, the notion that all life evolved from a single common ancestor *has always struck me as likely* to be** no less a made up story than Genesis. Okay, I get it now. English isn't your first language. K.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 11:44:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Sexual selection almost certainly does lead to new species. Consider a population of animals. Some of the females prefer to mate with the males that have red pigment while another segment of the female population prefers blue pigment. Those two populations could easily split into new species. Right. Of course variation is enhanced by sexual selection but speciation requires in theory some form of environmental separation of the variants for a long enough time period that further changes would inhibit the production of fertile progeny between the two populations. But you said evolution was a fact that we have observed in the field. I can't think of any examples. I put it to you that Evolution is a Theory not a fact. Evolutions is defined as the change of allele frequency in a populations. That is an observed fact. Speciation is an observed fact as well. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Hillwilliam -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 11:45:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie 'Deliberately obtuse' would be the person who is dishonestly pretending that they forgot what the bright yellow smileys mean. Go troll for your ignorance mongering and pointless arguments somewhere else No, being deliberately obtuse is acting as if one lacks basic intelligence past breathing, eating and wiping one's own ass. It is one of the more popular forms of trolling on these boards and I ask again. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 11:46:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata You're just making shit up. I never claimed there wasn't a single universal ancestor to all life. I just said I didn't think it was a lock... You seem to have just made shit up quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Frankly, the notion that all life evolved from a single common ancestor *has always struck me as likely* to be** no less a made up story than Genesis. Okay, I get it now. English isn't your first language. So you're saying Genesis is likely? Which is the oinly way your first claim and more recent aren't at odds.

vincentML -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 11:50:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alpha897 You need to understand that in order for new species to arise, there must be an addition to the genetic material. What you are describing is a variation on the species not the development of a new one. Creationists' talking points I have seen repeated a number of times without scientific justification. There is no imperative that requires an addition of genetic material. This is especially counterintuitive since much of our genome contains apparently non-coding DNA.

Moonhead -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 11:58:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Paladinagain can anyone give an actual example of evolution? You know, an actual incedent where something gave birth to something else? I wonder why that is? There's the fact that you need a new 'flu vaccine every year because the virus is evolving and mutating, I suppose.

EdBowie -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 11:59:25 AM)
Now you are simply lying about the definition, and projecting your trolling onto others. Anyone knows damn well from the fucking smiley that I was ridiculing the notion. Find me one single post anywhere where I've ever defended any aspect of creationism, or religious dogma for that matter. You know good and well that you can't, and you know that you are being dishonest to pretend that I'm on the opposite side of what I believe. You think its funny to repeat this tired old the pattern you've displayed over and over... pretending to misunderstand, telling people that they said something exactly the opposite of the position they hold (or what they wrote), or that they must use your mis-definitions and your distorted positions , and then defend them. quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie 'Deliberately obtuse' would be the person who is dishonestly pretending that they forgot what the bright yellow smileys mean. Go troll for your ignorance mongering and pointless arguments somewhere else No, being deliberately obtuse is acting as if one lacks basic intelligence past breathing, eating and wiping one's own ass. It is one of the more popular forms of trolling on these boards and I ask again. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

vincentML -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 12:08:28 PM)
quote: Evolutions is defined as the change of allele frequency in a populations. That is an observed fact. Allele frequency is a statistical convenience. I'll stay with the Biological Species Concept. All you have done is throw up a page full of discussion and opinions with maybe some minor speciation occurring in the laboratory. Just a smoke screen reply. I would expect better and more reasoned debate. Do your best. Give some concise detail. I am open to learning. But I'll be damned if I can except a mass of speculation and definitions as proof of your point.

vincentML -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/8/2014 12:10:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Paladinagain can anyone give an actual example of evolution? You know, an actual incedent where something gave birth to something else? I wonder why that is? There's the fact that you need a new 'flu vaccine every year because the virus is evolving and mutating, I suppose. The virus evolving and mutating supports biological change but says nothing about speciation.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625