RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/11/2006 1:16:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave So when I believe that molecular changes which occur for whatever reason and HOWEVER FREQUENTLY, in the genome, then I mis understand evolution. Is that so ? Yes. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Rule, just a point about you, some of your reponses seem so logical and well argued and some, in the SAME post, are as the Yanks say so far out in Left Field, I cant believe the same person posts them lol. Do you undergo a Quantum Transformation as you type ? [:D] I speak both languages, seeks: that of our reality and that of the spiritual one. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I have just noticed that I missed a NOT out when I was describing the period when Evolution was first posited. ie at that time Political control by Christians was under attack, Evolution was seen as a scientific method that would help that attack, therefore it received a soft ride. Thats what I meant. Satan is able to use and uses evolution theory as a weapon against Christianity and other religions because they - religions - themselves perceive this theory as a weapon of Satan instead of as a gift from the Creator.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/11/2006 4:30:19 PM)
Edited to mean what I wanted to say quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave So when I believe that molecular changes which occur in the genome are the driving force of evolution then I mis understand evolution. Is that so ? quote: ORIGINAL Rule Yes. If your answer is still yes then does it not follow either The DNA within the chromosome is NOT a molecule or Mutations to DNA do not affect Evolution.

Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/11/2006 5:02:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave So when I believe that molecular changes which occur in the genome are the driving force of evolution then I mis understand evolution. Is that so ? quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Yes. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave If your answer is still yes Yes, mutations are not the driving force. Natural selection is. (An even more powerful driving force is evolution by sexual selection, but that is another chapter.) Mutations are merely the substrate upon which natural selection acts. You may compare it to a Japanese rock garden: someone outside the rock garden throws rocks into it. These are random rocks (mutations) and the gardener (natural selection) acts on them to make a more beautiful garden by throwing out those that are not wanted. When one of those random rocks is especially beautiful, though, he makes sure to get many more of such rocks (multiplication by reproduction). Most of these random mutations have been caused by the replication enzymes of the cell during replication before it divides into daughter cells. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave then does it not follow either The DNA within the chromosome is NOT a molecule DNA is a mutable molecule. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave or Mutations to DNA do not affect Evolution. Not in themselves, no. It is mostly only when acted upon by natural selection that the frequency of new alleles (mutated genes) in the gene pool changes. Another - far slower - way in which the frequency of mostly neutral alleles in the gene pool may change is by genetic drift, which is a statistical process like the mathematical 'random walk'.

captiveplatypus -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/11/2006 8:10:43 PM)
I stopped responding to this thread when I realized that the opposition was blatantly ignorant.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/12/2006 12:22:21 AM)
extinct platypus says I stopped responding to this thread when I realized that the opposition was blatantly ignorant. I say:If you mean me you little duck I will get one of my LION friends, see earlier post, to deal with you. Rule offers a metaphor for Evolution. may compare it to a Japanese rock garden: someone outside the rock garden throws rocks into it. These are random rocks (mutations) and the gardener (natural selection) acts on them to make a more beautiful garden by throwing out those that are not wanted. Very scientific RULE say I sarcastically. Who chooses those mutations that result in ugliness then ? I rest my case M'lud. Not a lot more to say. Sigh of relief from the extinct duck.?

captiveplatypus -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/12/2006 1:17:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave extinct platypus says I stopped responding to this thread when I realized that the opposition was blatantly ignorant. I say:If you mean me you little duck I will get one of my LION friends, see earlier post, to deal with you. Rule offers a metaphor for Evolution. may compare it to a Japanese rock garden: someone outside the rock garden throws rocks into it. These are random rocks (mutations) and the gardener (natural selection) acts on them to make a more beautiful garden by throwing out those that are not wanted. Very scientific RULE say I sarcastically. Who chooses those mutations that result in ugliness then ? I rest my case M'lud. Not a lot more to say. Sigh of relief from the extinct duck.? [sm=biggrin.gif]at least he makes me giggle, though!

philosophy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/12/2006 5:34:50 AM)
"Rule offers a metaphor for Evolution. may compare it to a Japanese rock garden: someone outside the rock garden throws rocks into it. These are random rocks (mutations) and the gardener (natural selection) acts on them to make a more beautiful garden by throwing out those that are not wanted. Very scientific RULE say I sarcastically. Who chooses those mutations that result in ugliness then ?" .....with respect to Rule, the words beauty and ugly are misleading in this context......perhaps a better one is that natural selection 'chooses' those mutations that work. Most mutations, as well known, do not have beneficial effects on their hosts. Sometimes they do, the host survives longer or is better adapted and the mutation stands a chance of entering the gene pool. It's not rocket science.......and as for Occams Razor, yup it says the simplest hypothesis is most likely to be correct. ID requires more elements that evolution........

anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/12/2006 10:25:23 AM)
Natural selection is a human concept. You have to refrain from projecting human qualities on a process that has nothing to do with things like "beauty" and "value." Mutations are random, the results of those mutations will either have an easier or more difficult time surviving in their environment until bearing offspring (or maybe no change at all if the mutation is benign). This is the "selection" process. There are no decisions or evaluations being made and nature could care less which way it goes. It's simply change played out within a system of interdependencies where everything affects everything else. The example of the moths in England is a good example. When the soot from coal burning factories coated the trees making them darker, the lighter colored moths were more easily found and eaten before they could reproduce. The darker moths were not eaten, had greater numbers and proliferated until there were mostly dark moths in the general population. The lighter colored moths never stopped appearing, they just didn't last very long in any large numbers. Once the coal burning was stopped or polution control was implemented and the trees were once again their natural color, the whole thing reversed. Now the darker moths began to be eaten more readily than the light colored moths and the population mix shifted back in favor of the the lighter population. Both light and dark moths continued to appear randomly throughout this whole period of time. If the environment continued to maintain an extreme condition long enough, the light colored moths (or dark ones depending on the environmental conditions) would have been reduced in numbers sufficiently to have gone extinct. The moths didn't react to the environment and the environment didn't pressure moths to change their color. It was the overall context of everything involved that produced the changes. Very simple. ***** Side note: Evolution in humans has been disrupted by our ability to manipulate our environment. It doesn't mean we aren't evolving. We have just made it difficult for any particular environmental condition to become a constant in our existence. A good example of where this is not happening is people with dark skin living in more northern climates. Because of the high levels of melanin in their skin, vitamin B production is significantly reduced in an area where sunlight is diminished (there is much more intense sunlight near the equator). As a result, these people tend to develop rickets...a bone deficiency. In time, it will be interesting how these people change to adapt to the climate outside what was once their normal environment. This also serves to explain why people who have lived in more northern climates have light skin while those living near the equator are much darker. anthrosub**

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/12/2006 12:16:05 PM)
Back again with a comment for Daddy. Daddy...you have on more than one post referred to the Miller/Urey experiment and tho' admitting that it has been the subject of disinterested challenge, in general the result is incontrovertable. I believe you noted my stupidity in not uncritically accepting the result of the experiment. In fact the challenge is absolutely basic and if correct, renders the result, production of amino acids, in particular glycine, as false. That challenge is whether there was oxygen in the atmosphere or whether there was Methane and Ammonia. The composition of the atmosphere is NOT proven. and is critical. I do not mean of course in the experiment I mean in the Earth's atmosphere. I referredto this earlier when I said the experiment was controlled, Daddy claimed I had said rigged. This raises a point about Natural Selectioners, their absolute certainty, which on closer examination evaporates into a cloud of imprecision and controversial data. Anthrosub, not quite sure which side of the fence you sit but the underlying principle of the points you make is of a character of those frequently made by Natural Selectioners . That is they dont impinge much on the truth or otherwise of Natural Selection . Changes to existing species dont count. What is needed are changes producing NEW species. To the best of my knowledge no such changes can be demonstrated.

philosophy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/12/2006 1:04:18 PM)
"What is needed are changes producing NEW species. To the best of my knowledge no such changes can be demonstrated." ........not on a human history timescale......try the fossil record.

anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/12/2006 1:21:01 PM)
The moth example demonstrates on a macro level the mechanism of how natural selection occurs. I'm not talking about the genetic level as that's not my forte. As D4US mentioned earlier, once enough changes have occurred to make a particular species "different" enough, we stamp it as having become a new species. There are changes taking place in humans...the gradually change in the size of our jaws being one of them. That may not be enough to qualify as a new species but it is part and parcel to mutation that's taking place. As far as seeing a new species within a human's lifetime, philosophy makes the point. I don't think you're going to find anything above the bacteria level. But again, microbiology is not my field, so I'm not going to muddy up the discussion any further than it's already become. I understand the process and everything available in the fossil record as well as evidence of continual change taking place in living species today supports it. It may not be absolute proof for you or others but I've not seen anything that supports any other hypothesis even close to what's out there for natural selection. You're welcome to disagree naturally. anthrosub

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/12/2006 2:03:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave "What is needed are changes producing NEW species. To the best of my knowledge no such changes can be demonstrated." quote: ORIGINAL philosophy ........not on a human history timescale......try the fossil record. Please Mr philosophy and others who think as you do, read independant, ie neither pro Natural Selection nor pro Intelligent Design/Creationism commentators. The fossil record does NOT reveal a smooth transition of species developing to another species. It shows new species appearing as if from nowhere. Sometimes at a rapid rate. see the Cambrian Explosion.

anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/12/2006 2:34:44 PM)
I don't know what you know or are using as a reference. I can only surmise by what you write. So based on what you use as points to make your case, you give me the impression you are looking at things from a distance. The fossil record is not a bread crumb trail with examples of variation leading like a set of stairs from the most primitive to the most complex. Even if it did, that's not how it works anyway. Variations appear randomly. The changes are small and either contribute to a species surviving more effectively or not. If they do, that mutation stands a chance of being further mutated upon. The others will not because they died with the host. For those that do survive, the mutation is not necessarily extended upon, it could even go backwards...nature doesn't care. But if it adds a bit more to the species being able to survive in the current environment, then it becomes more common place through successive generations. Once enough changes take place that we decide constitutes a different species, then it gets tagged as such. When the environment changes drastically, the species that cannot survive in the new environment die out while those who can start changing because the new enviroment supports the random changes that come about. Some of these changes may not work well in the new environment either but others will. Food supply, water, the quality of the atmosphere, terrain...all these things contribute to what develops. The "explosions" of life you mention took place over long periods of time...hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. Forgive me but I don't think you can look at it as if it all happened very quickly. At best, changes take place in rapid succession when a niche is opened. When these periods occur, changes in life and species variation accelerates but is still mitigated by how quickly the particular species reproduces. I don't know what's so difficult to understand. There's enough evidence collected by now to support the hypothesis. I think it's the missing pieces that are being used to counter the theory but unfortunately, the missing pieces are mere speculation. You can't declare something based on nothing, which is what most creationists do. What they are doing is saying something must be true because they can imagine it and want to believe it. I think if you're that interested in all this, you should either take a class in molecular biology or get some books on the subject, then read up on natural history. Find some books that go into great detail explaining the various epochs and eras, how paleontologists and geologists read the fossil record, the tools they use, etc. Between the two, I think you would get a much clearer understanding of what the theory of evolution is all about and in the process, get a chance to see that scientists are the first to challenge a theory over and over again. anthrosub

Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/12/2006 4:40:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Changes to existing species dont count. What is needed are changes producing NEW species. To the best of my knowledge no such changes can be demonstrated. As a matter of fact, such evidence does exist in a particular way. There are changes in species that create what is called a 'cline'. Individuals at one end of the cline cannot mate with individuals at the other end of the cline, thus meeting the definition of two different species: inability to (mate and) produce fertile progeny. In a cline, therefore, evolution by natural selection demonstrates within one species that an accumulation of genetic and fenotypic (what it looks like) changes does produce different species. Usually individuals from the different ends of a cline do not meet, but in circumpolar (bird) species it does occur. Seeks, your knowledge is very, very limited.

Sinergy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/12/2006 6:17:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Uhh, Kenin, that means you believe in Intelligent Design. That's exactly what the whole issue is about. Hello A/all, Not exactly, LordAndMaster. Kenin (correct me if I am wrong) made a comment about Chaos Theory. Basically, chaos theory is the idea that in a chaotic system, all sorts of possibilities happen randomly and at some point you see repeating patterns. This has been proven in terms of computer systems, and theorized based on the dramatic explosion of species in the fossil record in the Pre-Cambrian explosion. Then something happens which upsets the apple cart (asteroid impact, supervolcano, supervirus, whatever) and the sustainable pattern dies out, chaos reigns for a while, and new sustainable patterns evolve. I was reading something a few months ago about a hypothesis of how DNA could be transplanted from one planet to the other. Was an interesting theory having to do with certain types of explosions which accellerate DNA molecules into orbit without subjecting them to the sorts of pressures that would destroy them. Then being of such a small mass that they might not burn up on reentry somewhere else. It was an interesting theory, not sure how to prove it but it was fun to read. The curious thing about chaotic systems and organization is in the various computer simulations, you can take a sustainable pattern which evolves, transplant it into a blank system with identical rules, and it may or may not continue to thrive. Chaos theory explains one theory of how life originated. While people seem intent on arguing over the origins of life, fighting against chaos theory (which has enough empirical proof to suggest it is correct) and evolution (which has been empirically proven time and time again with short-lived life forms like bacteria) theory, I think the question all of them are missing is... (drum roll) Who the hell set up the system in the first place? If I was elected God, I would make a nice system with a bunch of rules like gravity, chemical interactions, E=MC**2, etc, throw some junk into the mix, and see how things all ended up. The only side of this issue that refuses to listen to, debate, consider contradictory evidence, explore alternative possibilities, etc., happens to be people on the school boards in Kansas. Their entire theory is based on the simple precept that "We dont understand it, so it must be an Intelligent (unlike us, apparently) Designer who did it." Just me, could be wrong, etc. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/12/2006 6:32:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amastermind I don't know the details of the debate in Kansas but I do know this: Evolution is just a theory, and not a very good one at that. This is simply incorrect. You can make a culture of bacteria, in, for example, a coffee cup on your desk, and watch bacteria mutate in a couple of weeks. The mutations which make it more effective survive, whereas the ones that dont, make it die off. Or take HIV, which evolves (that would be changing into something (resistant to something killing their brethren off) other than what they were last week using that flawed theory known as "Evolution") within the patient to gain resistance (i.e. "evolving" a resistance to) to protease inhibitors. Or some staphlococcus bacteria which (because of that silly theory of evolution) have evolved (the ones that were resistant survived the patient being medicated) and are now two families of antibiotics away from being unkillable by modern medicine., the fact that wild almond trees produce a nut that is 99% fatal to eat due to cyanide in the nut, yet farmers found the 1% that was not poisonous (and bred them together, relying on the principle of evolution to ensure that the baby trees also produced non-poisonous almonds) and formed the Almond Growers Association so you could enjoy eating them, the list of examples supporting the theory of evolution is freaking endless. Im rather shocked you would state it was not a good theory. Believe what you want to believe, but unless you can empirically prove a statement like "evolution is not a very good theory" expect to appear to be un uneducated bumpkin at parties. Well, maybe not in Kansas. Evolution has been proven so many times and in so many ways that it is considered by the scientific community to be fact. Insofar as anything in science is considered fact, which simply means that until somebody can actually prove it to be incorrect, it is accepted as being true. While ID people bemoan the fact that they dont want to be descended from monkeys, the only actual "proof" they offer to support their theories boils down to "Im too ignorant, obtuse, or downright stupid to understand it, so it must be the result of an Intelligence Designer (who, curiously enough, has a name in the United States that rhymes with Todd, as opposed to all the other Intelligent Designers you might hear people talking about in other places)." Just me, etc. Sinergy

anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/12/2006 8:21:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: amastermind I don't know the details of the debate in Kansas but I do know this: Evolution is just a theory, and not a very good one at that. This is simply incorrect. You can make a culture of bacteria, in, for example, a coffee cup on your desk, and watch bacteria mutate in a couple of weeks. The mutations which make it more effective survive, whereas the ones that dont, make it die off. Or take HIV, which evolves (that would be changing into something (resistant to something killing their brethren off) other than what they were last week using that flawed theory known as "Evolution") within the patient to gain resistance (i.e. "evolving" a resistance to) to protease inhibitors. Or some staphlococcus bacteria which (because of that silly theory of evolution) have evolved (the ones that were resistant survived the patient being medicated) and are now two families of antibiotics away from being unkillable by modern medicine., the fact that wild almond trees produce a nut that is 99% fatal to eat due to cyanide in the nut, yet farmers found the 1% that was not poisonous (and bred them together, relying on the principle of evolution to ensure that the baby trees also produced non-poisonous almonds) and formed the Almond Growers Association so you could enjoy eating them, the list of examples supporting the theory of evolution is freaking endless. Im rather shocked you would state it was not a good theory. Believe what you want to believe, but unless you can empirically prove a statement like "evolution is not a very good theory" expect to appear to be un uneducated bumpkin at parties. Well, maybe not in Kansas. Evolution has been proven so many times and in so many ways that it is considered by the scientific community to be fact. Insofar as anything in science is considered fact, which simply means that until somebody can actually prove it to be incorrect, it is accepted as being true. While ID people bemoan the fact that they dont want to be descended from monkeys, the only actual "proof" they offer to support their theories boils down to "Im too ignorant, obtuse, or downright stupid to understand it, so it must be the result of an Intelligence Designer (who, curiously enough, has a name in the United States that rhymes with Todd, as opposed to all the other Intelligent Designers you might hear people talking about in other places)." Just me, etc. Sinergy About a year ago, I saw a newscast about a group out west (in Colorado or California...I can't remember) who were a bunch of creationists running a special program for children who's parents also believed in the creation story and wanted their children to get exposure to the counter-argument against the theory of evolution. One of the group leaders took some time to explain to the reporter on camera what their principle beef with evolution is. He said evolution theory teaches children you don't need God because if you believe the theory, then God must therefore not exist or be necessary. They took the children to a museum of natural history, filled with the skeletons of dinosaurs, murals depicting what the world might have looked like back then, charts showing the organization of species from the earliest forms to the present, etc. The museum director accompanied the group as they took a tour through the museum, stopping here and there where the leaders would give their take on what evolution theory is trying to say, and all the while tried very hard to maintain his composure. At one point he had to excuse himself and went to a backroom and the reporter followed with the camera crew. Once away from the creationist tour, he told the reporter he was upset to the point of feeling like he was going to vomit listening to the garbage the creationists were telling the kids. When I heard the stuff they were saying, I felt pretty much the same way. It's really sickening to see young children under the age of 10 being told what is essentially crap if it were being told to an adult with a developed thinking mind. But to hijack the minds of children, supposedly for the good of God, really is a crime. I don't say this because they were attacking evolution theory but because they were basing everything they believe on what amounts to a "just so" story. None of them had any idea what they were talking about as they described the theory of evolution to the kids. You would think they'd have the decency to allow someone who's an expert in the field to talk about the theory but that would obviously not work to their ends. To me, this sort of "education" of children here in the United States is no different in principle than the education young boys got under the Taliban in Afghanistan where the only textbook they are allowed to read in school is the Quran. anthrosub

captiveplatypus -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/12/2006 8:24:24 PM)
I say we neuter all those who believe in ID and see what happens. :) I hypothosize a 30% increase in IQ in the human populace! annies up who's takin' the bet? is sure to be struck down for that post

Lordandmaster -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/12/2006 9:40:56 PM)
I don't really want to go over this in depth, but Kenin believes that there is divine will in nature. He's loading the terms of the debate, pretending that anyone who doesn't accept this premise is some kind of crazy radical. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Uhh, Kenin, that means you believe in Intelligent Design. That's exactly what the whole issue is about. Not exactly, LordAndMaster. Kenin (correct me if I am wrong) made a comment about Chaos Theory. Basically, chaos theory is the idea that in a chaotic system, all sorts of possibilities happen randomly and at some point you see repeating patterns. This has been proven in terms of computer systems, and theorized based on the dramatic explosion of species in the fossil record in the Pre-Cambrian explosion.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/13/2006 1:40:25 AM)
After one of the bacterium has mutated Mr sinergy tell, what species has it changed into ? Just had a thought and again I go out on a limb, that is I speculate. In investigating genetic structure and heredity a certain type of fly is used that has a short breeding cycle. Thus thousands of generations can be and HAVE been produced and scientifically observed. Do not recall anyone reporting any thing resembling Natural Selection occurring.. The little critters just remain FLYS. he he he he he he he he he he he.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875