User Tag List

First 51314151617 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 176

  1. #141
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    I could care less if someone believes in the bible or believes in evolution(as long as it's a belief and they know it). But as you can see, people were deluding themselves into thinking a theory was a fact.
    You are right. Evolution only a theory... kind of like the theory of gravity.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  2. #142
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    You are right. Evolution only a theory... kind of like the theory of gravity.
    And I hate to keep beating this point to death... but the modern synthesis of evolution is so much harder science than gravity is. We actually have a causative framework (genetic variation) and a means of activity (natural selection). All we know about gravity is its effects (attracting masses and warping space-time)... we don't have a clue what causes it or what's the stuff gravity's made of (unlike the other fundamental forces - strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic).

    Being able to do what we do regarding gravity is absolutely astounding. It's the equivalent of consistently winning soccer games, only knowing that you score when the point total increases. We've gotten to the point where we know that kicking the ball potentially increases the score, but other than that, absolutely nothing.

  3. #143
    Senior Member wank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    free
    Enneagram
    nope
    Posts
    131

    Default

    please site the science.
    For more than just microevolution.
    Everyone is a case study.

  4. #144
    WTF is this dude saying? A Schnitzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Socionics
    B.S.
    Posts
    1,155

    Default

    LOL you guys. There is no theory of gravity.
    There's the law of universal gravitation, which is essentially an equation that describes how matter behaves. Scientific Laws are less useful than theories because they don't explain anything, they just describe physical behaviour through an equation. Newton's Law had no explanation attached to it. So even though a Law sounds better through conventional language scientific theories actually contain more Scientific knowledge.

    So far the best explanation for gravitation has been Einstein's theory of General Relativity. It holds about as much weight as the theory of Evolution and a lot more than Newton's Law of Gravitation.

    There are no Scientific theories or laws about the Bible so trying to compare them is apples and oranges.
    Quote Originally Posted by prplchknz View Post
    sheesh humans! for realz

  5. #145
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wank View Post
    please site the science.
    For more than just microevolution.
    Macroevolution is just microevolution in multi-celled organisms. We all start as a single cell. If it can happen to a bacterium or a protist, why can't it happen to a multi-celled organism, which is simply a set of single-celled organisms specialized for particular purposes?

    What about natural selection doesn't make sense to you?

  6. #146
    Junior Member Rixonomic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Macroevolution is just microevolution in multi-celled organisms. We all start as a single cell. If it can happen to a bacterium or a protist, why can't it happen to a multi-celled organism, which is simply a set of single-celled organisms specialized for particular purposes?

    What about natural selection doesn't make sense to you?

    There is a major difference between Micro, and Macro evolution that I think many people are missing.

    Micro evolution is observed.

    Macro evolution is not observed.

    And putting them in the same category does not make them the same thing. We see roses produce roses. Sometimes you get a different color rose, but it's still just a rose. We see bacteria and viruses change into new bacteria and viruses, but they're still just bacteria and viruses.

    You see, we observe micro evolution. No problem there. The bible would call this a variation in kinds.

    Now, please, can anyone show me an example of one kind of animal changing to another? This would be an example of macro evolution, and I am still waiting very patiently to see one.



    Natural selection is not a driving force for evolution. Natural selection selects. And it can only select from the genetic information it has to select from. Please show me an example of natural selection selecting new genetic information. I would very much so like to see it.

  7. #147
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rixonomic View Post
    There is a major difference between Micro, and Macro evolution that I think many people are missing.

    Micro evolution is observed.

    Macro evolution is not observed.
    Yes it is. The fossil record is a pretty damn good, and genetic paleontology is now allowing us to decipher further the connections between monophyletic organisms, as we can see the exact genetic differences between extinct animals and their extant relatives. It's only a matter of time before we'll be able to declare outright that one animal is a proven descendant of a fossil form, where these particular modifications on these particular genes corresponded to the separate speciation. We've already noticed a hell of a lot of very close examples, for example, dogs and wolves, cats and a desert variety of the wildcat, chickens and the red junglefowl, cattle and the extinct aurochs, so on and so forth. What's so strange to think that what humans (a part of nature ourselves) could do over a few thousand years nature itself could do over billions?

    Never mind that we can also predict what antibiotics certain bacteria will become resistant to due to genetic markers

    And putting them in the same category does not make them the same thing. We see roses produce roses. Sometimes you get a different color rose, but it's still just a rose. We see bacteria and viruses change into new bacteria and viruses, but they're still just bacteria and viruses.
    Considering that there's more observed genetic variation in bacteria than in eukaryotes and archaea combined, you might want to rethink your position there.

    You see, we observe micro evolution. No problem there. The bible would call this a variation in kinds.
    Evolution is still evolution. We see genetic variation and natural selection choosing which is the most adaptable. Why is it difficult to see that process scaled up to a multi-cellular organism, considering all start as a single cell and all cells within contain the same genetic code?

    Now, please, can anyone show me an example of one kind of animal changing to another? This would be an example of macro evolution, and I am still waiting very patiently to see one.
    Well, just look at the list of domesticated animals up on top. They evolved from their wild ancestors to accommodate to living with humans. That's macroevolution, as humans, being part of nature, are a force of selection, even if we like to think of ourselves as independent from nature.

    Natural selection is not a driving force for evolution. Natural selection selects. And it can only select from the genetic information it has to select from. Please show me an example of natural selection selecting new genetic information. I would very much so like to see it.
    Well, you're right in the sense that genes can only do one thing - give commands to create proteins. That being said, humans have only been observing natural selection for about 150 years. We know that genetic mutations and shift occur - those are expressions of new genetic combinations. Meanwhile, there are new studies and hypotheses indicating that often genetic material is added to a genome by the recombination of RNA from viruses such as HIV. If that's the case, and a virus attaches its particular set of codons to a gamete's genome, then the ability of a genome to vary and add/subtract genetic code is nearly unlimited.

    It's all just chemicals, anyway.

  8. #148
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Wow, if I shoved coal up any of your assholes I bet diamonds would come out.

    The theory of gravity comment was a joke. Relax.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  9. #149
    Junior Member Rixonomic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Yes it is. The fossil record is a pretty damn good, and genetic paleontology is now allowing us to decipher further the connections between monophyletic organisms, as we can see the exact genetic differences between extinct animals and their extant relatives. It's only a matter of time before we'll be able to declare outright that one animal is a proven descendant of a fossil form, where these particular modifications on these particular genes corresponded to the separate speciation. We've already noticed a hell of a lot of very close examples, for example, dogs and wolves, cats and a desert variety of the wildcat, chickens and the red junglefowl, cattle and the extinct aurochs, so on and so forth. What's so strange to think that what humans (a part of nature ourselves) could do over a few thousand years nature itself could do over billions?
    I'm familiar with the fossil record. Upon closer inspection, it appears to be lacking...at best. Sadly, I admit I have never seen an intermediate fossil. All the intermediate fossils off which I once based my faith in evolution I have found to be either hoaxes or misrepresentations of the truth. If anyone is familiar with any intermediate fossils showing one kind of animal changing into another, please do not hesitate to show me. I'd be thrilled to see it.

    A creationist would have no problem telling you that dogs, wolves and coyote's are the same kind of animal, that they all descended from a common ancestor that was also a dog. This goes for all similar cases. This is what we observe. That is to say, we have never seen anything contrary to this. Or, if the glass is half empty, macro evolution has not been observed.


    And dog breeders can predict what kind of puppies the bitch is going to have. Still dogs, still a bacteria.


    Considering that there's more observed genetic variation in bacteria than in eukaryotes and archaea combined, you might want to rethink your position there.
    Considering your bacteria still hasn't changed into anything other than a bacteria, you may want to consider the possibility that neither of us have the answer.


    Evolution is still evolution. We see genetic variation and natural selection choosing which is the most adaptable. Why is it difficult to see that process scaled up to a multi-cellular organism, considering all start as a single cell and all cells within contain the same genetic code?
    Now do you see where you went from science to religion there?

    "We see genetic variation and natural selection choosing which is the most adaptable."

    Good observation. No argument from the creationist there.

    "Why is it difficult to see that process scaled up..."

    Now you've gone from the observable, to what you have to imagine. I do not have a hard time imagining this. For decades this made so much sense to me I never felt any need to question it. I've believed and defended this world view nearly my entire life. My issue now is that this is no longer observable science. I have to believe this happened. And I need faith in order to believe it, which I did once have, I simply didn't realize it. I understand there's a lot of great science involved here. I've got no problem with the science. But you simply cannot show someone that macro evolution has happened. We see micro evolution, no question about that. Do you see what an important distinction this is? This is why we've developed the two different terms; micro and macro. This is the difference between them, one is observed, and one clearly is not.


    Well, just look at the list of domesticated animals up on top. They evolved from their wild ancestors to accommodate to living with humans. That's macroevolution, as humans, being part of nature, are a force of selection, even if we like to think of ourselves as independent from nature.
    Domestication is psychological and cultural, not genetic. Whether a dog is domesticated is based on the conditions in which the dog is raised. Same goes for cats, and rabbits, and turtles and people and probably any animal you can think of. People have been domesticating strange animals as far back as history goes. I think that it has been pretty clearly demonstrated and observed that almost any animal can be domesticated, no evolution required.

    Well, you're right in the sense that genes can only do one thing - give commands to create proteins. That being said, humans have only been observing natural selection for about 150 years. We know that genetic mutations and shift occur - those are expressions of new genetic combinations. Meanwhile, there are new studies and hypotheses indicating that often genetic material is added to a genome by the recombination of RNA from viruses such as HIV. If that's the case, and a virus attaches its particular set of codons to a gamete's genome, then the ability of a genome to vary and add/subtract genetic code is nearly unlimited.
    Can you give me an example of one of these mutations? Are they beneficial? Is new genetic information added? Do we observe this? Can you give me an example of any beneficial mutation? I really would love to see it.

    And I still have not seen any observable science indicating any kind of macro evolution has taken place.

    It's all just chemicals, anyway.
    That's exactly what I used to say.

  10. #150
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3

    Default

    We have. No one says that Genesis must be literal. Most scholarship has interpreted it as allegorical from the beginning. Even when hard evidence is presented that the universe is much older than YEC asserts, the response will usually be to reject the data.
    Nice to know your mind's convinced. For now I won't bother listing the PHDs that disagree with evolution strongly, and as well it's fair to say the Bible is purely allegorical. Let's simply argue on grounds of validity of evolution.

    There is no belief. There is a theory, and there are mountains of data to support it. That it has essentially remained unchanged since Darwin and Mendel were combined in the early 20th Century speaks well to its sticking power.
    My apologies on the 'core belief' statement, I'll be more shrewd in my word choice. As of yet, perhaps I haven't scaled these mountains of data. Also, Darwin's use of the geological column via influence from Lyell is largely considered a fallacy by many evolutionists, as it isn't observable.

    Evolution and abiogenesis are two different concepts, and it's disingenuous to conflate them. There is nothing inconsistent with saying that a first cause created the universe, and then evolution happened because of the rules the universe was created by.
    I agree they're different concepts, and I wasn't attempting to conflate them. Rather, without an abiogenesis account of first cause of life, where do we look? Or do we simply hope, if even not within our lifetime, that science will prevail and eventually yield a proper explanation for this current misunderstanding? As of yet, RNA hypothesis is unsubstantial.

    Once again, biogenesis and evolution are two different fields.All of these subsequent things are easily explained through natural selection and genetic variation. Nervous ganglia in an invertibrate could have one or a thousand genetic variations that caused them to fuse into a notochord. Then further variations could have caused this notochord to calcify, and form a spinal column. From this point, variation can run wild, as there is a solid structure. One million years is a long time.
    I suppose, given that such genetic variations are possible (is there evidence in biogenetics to support this?), this could be possible, as one million years is indeed a long time.

    The sun has stayed in a very similar state over the last 2.5 billion years, slightly dimming over that time - we know this because the mathematics involved with astronomy tells us this to be the case. Likewise, that's a big assumption that life requires a similar environment to the current one to exist. Extremophile bacteria persist and thrive in high temperature and high acid environments. The only thing life generally can't tolerate is high ionizing radiation - and water does a good job of creating a barrier around that.
    Ahh, I'm not too familar with said mathematics involved with astronomy, but I am aware of the widely accepted view of the time cycle for a star, and that our sun is still in its main sequence. Though, I find it curious that we've never witnessed (to the extent of my awareness) the birth of a star inside of any observable nebula, though I suppose that within our short timeframe of observation, it's unplausible to suggest otherwise. I also find it curious that there's numerous historical accounts regarding Sirius as once a red star, while it's now considered a white dwarf (this issue is still in debate by many). Or that we've found very few supernova remnants, relative to how many one would imagine there would be for a universe billions of years old. Though, these are all probably just explainable quibbles.

    No. It's a scientific fact. It supports all the evidence, and has for over 150 years. The question since Darwin has never been whether there is evolution through natural selection, because it's that apparent. The question has been the mechanics of this evolution, which we now know to be genetic variation.
    150 years ago there was little evidence to support the theory, it was mere hypothesis. It gained wind due to social pressure from the British East India Company not for any scientific reasons, but for cultural ones. Since then we've been trying to puzzle piece the theory to make sure it remains plausible within the public field. As for genetic variation, I've yet to see any beneficial mutations that result from an increase in genetic complexity, what would be required to lend credence to genetic variation's plausibility.

    All of modern biology is built on this data. Modern biology is also incredibly good at making predictions based on this - once again, see the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This was predicted just a few
    years after penicillin was discovered, and did not surprise the scientific world as many would have you believe.
    This is not proper evidence. In every case I've witnessed, the antibiotic attacks the bacteria's ribosome, in which case the bacteria develops a structural deformity in its ribosomes, rendering the antibiotic ineffective. The problem here is that there is no gain of genetic information, and while this new resistance is beneficial to the bacteria, the structural deformity itself is not. Though, I'm sure there's a plethora of other examples that support genetic variation, given how strongly it is asserted.

    Radiometric dating? Mountains of research affirming its effectiveness. The math works, too. The only real "evidence" that could disavow it is the idea that "God created it that way" - a non-scientific hypothesis. Oh, and we also measure the decay rate in recently deceased organisms, too, just to calibrate the numbers.
    That's very knowledgable. Though, no matter what we radiometrically date, we have no way of knowing what the initial amount of the daughter (or parent for that matter) isotope is- if there were to be any, the radiometric date we obtain is unreliable. Furthermore, this assumes the object was subject to no forms of contamination, which is also impossible to prove, though the conditions for contamination are numerous. It also assumes that the decay rate of these isotopes has remained the same for whatever period of time (though there is only hypothesis to suggest otherwise). If you'd like, I can provide evidence that exhibits flaw in carbon, argon, and uranium dating methods.

    Mutations and genetic drift? Once again, the very famous case of moths in England, whereby the black variation would thrive in a polluted environment with soot-covered trees while the white variation would be dominant in the cleaner areas with white-barked trees. Oh, there's also the thing about my being lactose tolerant, which arose in only two places in the world - Northern Europe and West Africa. Every other population stops producing lactase after weaning. Variation within a species? Last time I checked, humanity was able to reproduce among itself, regardless of ethnicity, each of which has traits specific to it (skin color, average height, temperature tolerance, etc). There's lots of variation within homo sapiens sapiens.
    You misinterpreted me. I was suggesting that mutations and genetic drift (rather, genetic variation, as drift is a derivative thereof) are only evidence of variation within a species, and don't provide any evidence for speciation, despite our willingness to interpret it as such. The examples you provided are just that, variation within species- as to my understanding, none of those are evidence for macroevolution.

    There is nothing within that statement that fits the evidence that we have. Until you provide substantial evidence for a global deluge (extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence), this hypothesis completely collapses on itself.
    Many would argue that the fossil record, as well as many geographical structures, provide evidence for a flood. I'll elaborate on either if you'd like.

    And that's a bad thing? Like I said, put up the evidence, then we'll talk. Until then, it's not worth consideration.
    What bothers me is that despite the evidence that the creationists provide(and I will admit, there are certainly situations in which there is bias and misinformation at hand), the line of logic I provided is consistently what scientists fall back on to disregard the evidence entirely without giving it proper consideration.

    No, it doesn't. It means that these are the rules of the universe as it currently exists. Just as we cannot know what happened before the Big Bang (or if there is such a thing as before), unless some spectacular evidence arises to explain this, or some powerful equation describes the relationship, we cannot make any assumptions on where the universe came from. The null hypothesis is that matter and energy are eternal and uncreated, and until we have distinct evidence otherwise, that's the place to start from. Second law only states that by current energy transfer methods as we understand them, the tendency is for entropy to increase. It doesn't mean that something else completely different on a quantum scale starts happening when a system is fully entropic; it just means we don't know, and can't observe otherwise. It implies nothing about the start of the universe whatsoever - it just means that we don't know, beyond a heat death, what would happen when the universe reaches full entropy.
    Thank you for clarifying on my misuse of entropy. Though, from the theological standpoint, my point stands. We have no sufficient scientific explanation that supports a metaphysical account regarding the creation of the universe or its laws. Not that this has a negative (or any) implication, just a point I think that should be kept in mind.

    The Big Bang is science. We have evidence (intergalactic background radiation) that it happened, and its mathematical implications square away with all other known scientific knowledge. We're not just making it up.
    I was unaware of the implications of intergalatic background radiation- if you can elaborate, or provide any links, I'd appreciate it. Either way, I'll do some investigation on my own as well.

    No, anthropology has made it abundantly clear that humans are social beings. Evolutionary theory has taken this and through the application of game theory and other mathematical constructs, made it very apparent that it's to humans' survival advantage to be social and altruistic - the real basis of religious morality. Selfish behavior is punished because we need our group surroundings and social cohesion - a single human doesn't last long in an unfriendly environment, as we have no claws nor fangs. Likewise, many seemingly contradictory traits (such as homosexuality) make a lot of sense in this context (you personally do not reproduce, but you help your brothers/sisters reproduce, and since they have half your genes, that helps self-perpetuation).
    Yes, we are social beings. It is advantageous to be social, but altruistic is quite circumstantial, and these two ideas are hardly the basis of religious morality, save for those religions that have stemmed from evolutionary principles. Selfish behavior is punished when the selfish have no authority to avoid consequence, but as governments around the world continually remind us, selfish behavior will be exerted and go largely unpunished. My reason for referencing Hitler was because his claiming the Aryans superior and Jews inferior was directly influenced by evolutionary thinking and a social darwinist mentality.

    The evidence exists. Are you willing to accept it?
    I'm accepting it as I come across it and it's considered rational to me. I've began reading the pdf you linked in one of your later posts.

    I won't be responding for a few days, I've a busy weekend ahead of me.

Similar Threads

  1. Sensing/iNtuiting Game: Perceiving Differences
    By rivercrow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 179
    Last Post: 02-11-2012, 05:30 PM
  2. Bible Toys Invade Wal-Mart
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-04-2007, 12:53 AM
  3. RIAA and investigatory processes
    By rivercrow in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-20-2007, 04:55 PM
  4. Intuitive memory...
    By The Ü™ in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-09-2007, 08:43 PM
  5. Do Sensors read faster than iNtuitives?
    By Dufresne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-26-2007, 03:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO