- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 14 2010,16:41) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 14 2010,15:12) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 14 2010,14:20) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 14 2010,08:29) Of course consciousness evolved. Every aspect of every living organism is a product of evolution by natural selection. Stuart
How would consciousness evolve?Also since evolution is a slow process how would there be any initial evolution in the first living beings?
Anything arises because an allele appears as a more marked phenotype of one section of a population, and bears a survival and reproductive advantage resulting in the gene having an increased frequency in the population.That's how.
What is 'initial evolution'?
Stuart
how would the allele “know” that it bears a survival and reproductive advantage? In other words why would an alternative DNA sequence suddenly appear?And how long would it take? Obviously it couldn't happen in a single lifetime or according to the theory many lifetimes, right?
You were the one who challenged me to this debate.I thought it was because you had a case to make.
But actually all this is amounting to is me tutoring you in biology and ethical philosophy. And doing a bit of reality-checking for you about your abomination of a belief system.
OK. This one is free. Then I will think about charging.
Quote how would the allele “know” that it bears a survival and reproductive advantage?
Alleles are versions of a gene, sections of DNA that code for a protein that causes, or contributes to a phenotype, the physical or behavioural expression of that allele. The DNA itself ‘knows’ nothing. It is just code that has managed to get itself replicated in an organism that is descended from an unbroken line of successful reproductions.Quote In other words why would an alternative DNA sequence suddenly appear?
That is not another way of saying it, this is an entirely different concept. DNA changes by mistakes in copying and damage from background radiation, to name two of the many ways it happens.Quote And how long would it take? Obviously it couldn't happen in a single lifetime or according to the theory many lifetimes, right? How long would WHAT take? The mutation or the selection?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 14 2010,18:29) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 14 2010,16:41) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 14 2010,15:12) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 14 2010,14:20) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 14 2010,08:29) Of course consciousness evolved. Every aspect of every living organism is a product of evolution by natural selection. Stuart
How would consciousness evolve?Also since evolution is a slow process how would there be any initial evolution in the first living beings?
Anything arises because an allele appears as a more marked phenotype of one section of a population, and bears a survival and reproductive advantage resulting in the gene having an increased frequency in the population.That's how.
What is 'initial evolution'?
Stuart
how would the allele “know” that it bears a survival and reproductive advantage? In other words why would an alternative DNA sequence suddenly appear?And how long would it take? Obviously it couldn't happen in a single lifetime or according to the theory many lifetimes, right?
You were the one who challenged me to this debate.I thought it was because you had a case to make.
But actually all this is amounting to is me tutoring you in biology and ethical philosophy. And doing a bit of reality-checking for you about your abomination of a belief system.
OK. This one is free. Then I will think about charging.
Quote how would the allele “know” that it bears a survival and reproductive advantage?
Alleles are versions of a gene, sections of DNA that code for a protein that causes, or contributes to a phenotype, the physical or behavioural expression of that allele. The DNA itself ‘knows’ nothing. It is just code that has managed to get itself replicated in an organism that is descended from an unbroken line of successful reproductions.Quote In other words why would an alternative DNA sequence suddenly appear?
That is not another way of saying it, this is an entirely different concept. DNA changes by mistakes in copying and damage from background radiation, to name two of the many ways it happens.Quote And how long would it take? Obviously it couldn't happen in a single lifetime or according to the theory many lifetimes, right? How long would WHAT take? The mutation or the selection?
Stuart
STU,You seem to not understand what you are talking about, you said:
Quote Alleles are versions of a gene I said
Quote In other words why would an alternative DNA sequence suddenly appear? You just said alleles are versions of a gene and then told me I was wrong.
Now how long would it take for either? Because neither could occur and effect any particular organism in a single life cycle or for that matter many many life cycles.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 15 2010,11:56) You seem to not understand what you are talking about, you said: Quote Alleles are versions of a gene I said
Quote In other words why would an alternative DNA sequence suddenly appear? You just said alleles are versions of a gene and then told me I was wrong.
Now how long would it take for either? Because neither could occur and effect any particular organism in a single life cycle or for that matter many many life cycles.
BD. Getting bored with your nonsense now.You wrote:
Quote how would the allele “know” that it bears a survival and reproductive advantage? In other words why would an alternative DNA sequence suddenly appear?
You are asking about how alleles know things, and then rephrasing the question as why do alternative 'DNA sequences' appear. Alleles don't know anything. There are many mechanisms that produce variations in DNA.Quote Now how long would it take for either? Because neither could occur and effect any particular organism in a single life cycle or for that matter many many life cycles.
You are completely wrong again, but if you have already made up your mind that these things can't happen then what is the point in any discussion at all?Why don't you learn something about natural selection and then get back to us when your questions are more sophisticated than the sort that might reasonably be asked in primary school.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 15 2010,13:28) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 15 2010,11:56) You seem to not understand what you are talking about, you said: Quote Alleles are versions of a gene I said
Quote In other words why would an alternative DNA sequence suddenly appear? You just said alleles are versions of a gene and then told me I was wrong.
Now how long would it take for either? Because neither could occur and effect any particular organism in a single life cycle or for that matter many many life cycles.
BD. Getting bored with your nonsense now.You wrote:
Quote how would the allele “know” that it bears a survival and reproductive advantage? In other words why would an alternative DNA sequence suddenly appear?
You are asking about how alleles know things, and then rephrasing the question as why do alternative 'DNA sequences' appear. Alleles don't know anything. There are many mechanisms that produce variations in DNA.Quote Now how long would it take for either? Because neither could occur and effect any particular organism in a single life cycle or for that matter many many life cycles.
You are completely wrong again, but if you have already made up your mind that these things can't happen then what is the point in any discussion at all?Why don't you learn something about natural selection and then get back to us when your questions are more sophisticated than the sort that might reasonably be asked in primary school.
Stuart
Nice try but you can't answer the most simple questions.You said I am wrong but saying I am wrong doesn't make it so. Explain how I am wrong.
Do mutations that assist natural selection happen quickly or over long periods of time?
Mutations do not 'assist' natural selection. They are the source of the variation in a population, particular groups of which will be better at survival and reproduction, and whose alleles will come to be more frequent in that population over time. With no mutation there would be no alternatives from which survival and reproductive ability could select, there would be no evolution, and no explanation for why there are species that show common descent.
Mutations happen instantly, the change in their frequency in the population takes generations. In quickly-reproducing bacteria or fruit flies, those changes could take months or a year. That is why microorganisms have dominion over us: they will always win an evolutionary arms race.
There, I have made your question into something that can be answered.
That will be US$10.
Now how about you learn something about the subject for yourself. I'll waiver the fee if you can give me an account of how Richard Dawkins thinks evolution works.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2010,08:51) Mutations do not 'assist' natural selection. They are the source of the variation in a population, particular groups of which will be better at survival and reproduction, and whose alleles will come to be more frequent in that population over time. With no mutation there would be no alternatives from which survival and reproductive ability could select, there would be no evolution, and no explanation for why there are species that show common descent. Mutations happen instantly, the change in their frequency in the population takes generations. In quickly-reproducing bacteria or fruit flies, those changes could take months or a year. That is why microorganisms have dominion over us: they will always win an evolutionary arms race.
There, I have made your question into something that can be answered.
That will be US$10.
Now how about you learn something about the subject for yourself. I'll waiver the fee if you can give me an account of how Richard Dawkins thinks evolution works.
Stuart
So you assume that mutations are generally good and not harmful?What do you mean by “select”
What do you mean mutations happen instantly, that makes no sense, does it?
By the way why are you once again doing the same thing as ED
He says that he is my teacher and now you say that you are my teacher this is clear proof that a method used by many who fear losing their “Position” will resort to calling the person questioning their position their student
Quote So you assume that mutations are generally good and not harmful?
No, overwhelmingly most mutations are harmful. Many are neutral too, affecting DNA that does not code for proteins.Quote What do you mean by “select”
Individuals with that allele survive to reproduce more frequently than those who do not have it, increasing the frequency of that version of the gene in the population.Quote What do you mean mutations happen instantly, that makes no sense, does it?
Radiation will cause an instant change in DNA. There is some capacity for repair, but if the change is not fixed then it represents an instant, permanent change. Copying errors occur, some of which increase the amount of DNA. How are those changes not instant?Quote By the way why are you once again doing the same thing as ED He says that he is my teacher and now you say that you are my teacher this is clear proof that a method used by many who fear losing their “Position” will resort to calling the person questioning their position their student
That will be another US$8. I am giving you a discount this time because the questions were more sensible.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2010,15:24) Quote So you assume that mutations are generally good and not harmful?
No, overwhelmingly most mutations are harmful. Many are neutral too, affecting DNA that does not code for proteins.Quote What do you mean by “select”
Individuals with that allele survive to reproduce more frequently than those who do not have it, increasing the frequency of that version of the gene in the population.Quote What do you mean mutations happen instantly, that makes no sense, does it?
Radiation will cause an instant change in DNA. There is some capacity for repair, but if the change is not fixed then it represents an instant, permanent change. Copying errors occur, some of which increase the amount of DNA. How are those changes not instant?Quote By the way why are you once again doing the same thing as ED He says that he is my teacher and now you say that you are my teacher this is clear proof that a method used by many who fear losing their “Position” will resort to calling the person questioning their position their student
That will be another US$8. I am giving you a discount this time because the questions were more sensible.Stuart
So you think these overwhelmingly bad mutations are responsible for building up the entire spectrum of species?Have you ever seen a trigger fish?
As a protection against predators, triggerfish can erect the first two dorsal spines: The first, (anterior) spine is locked in place by erection of the short second spine, and can be unlocked only by depressing the second, “trigger” spine, hence the family name “triggerfish”.
Now you are saying that at some point this fish did not have this defense system, right?
Then somehow over time some mutation occured that started these fish forming a very complex defense system accidentally, right?
STU,
You believe that?
Quote So you think these overwhelmingly bad mutations are responsible for building up the entire spectrum of species?
Obviously not. The bad ones are not selected.Have you ever seen a trigger fish?
As a protection against predators, triggerfish can erect the first two dorsal spines: The first, (anterior) spine is locked in place by erection of the short second spine, and can be unlocked only by depressing the second, “trigger” spine, hence the family name “triggerfish”.
Now you are saying that at some point this fish did not have this defense system, right?
Then somehow over time some mutation occured that started these fish forming a very complex defense system accidentally, right?
STU,
You believe that?[/quote]
No. Of course not. Single mutations do not achieve mechanisms like that. Anyone who suggested it would have to either be an idiot or a lying strawman-creating creationist.That’s US$12 for this post. Two dollars extra for responding to the disingenuous strawman.
Total due is now US$30, but the $10 discount is still available if you can tell me what Richard Dawkins thinks evolution is.
Stuart
Bad formatting…attempt two:
Quote So you think these overwhelmingly bad mutations are responsible for building up the entire spectrum of species?
Obviously not. The bad ones are not selected.Quote Have you ever seen a trigger fish? As a protection against predators, triggerfish can erect the first two dorsal spines: The first, (anterior) spine is locked in place by erection of the short second spine, and can be unlocked only by depressing the second, “trigger” spine, hence the family name “triggerfish”.
Now you are saying that at some point this fish did not have this defense system, right?
Then somehow over time some mutation occured that started these fish forming a very complex defense system accidentally, right?
STU,
You believe that?
No. Of course not. Single mutations do not achieve mechanisms like that. Anyone who suggested it would have to either be an idiot or a lying strawman-creating creationist.That’s US$12 for this post. Two dollars extra for responding to the disingenuous strawman.
Total due is now US$30, but the $10 discount is still available if you can tell me what Richard Dawkins thinks evolution is.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2010,20:10) Bad formatting…attempt two: Quote So you think these overwhelmingly bad mutations are responsible for building up the entire spectrum of species?
Obviously not. The bad ones are not selected.Quote Have you ever seen a trigger fish? As a protection against predators, triggerfish can erect the first two dorsal spines: The first, (anterior) spine is locked in place by erection of the short second spine, and can be unlocked only by depressing the second, “trigger” spine, hence the family name “triggerfish”.
Now you are saying that at some point this fish did not have this defense system, right?
Then somehow over time some mutation occured that started these fish forming a very complex defense system accidentally, right?
STU,
You believe that?
No. Of course not. Single mutations do not achieve mechanisms like that. Anyone who suggested it would have to either be an idiot or a lying strawman-creating creationist.That’s US$12 for this post. Two dollars extra for responding to the disingenuous strawman.
Total due is now US$30, but the $10 discount is still available if you can tell me what Richard Dawkins thinks evolution is.
Stuart
STU,I want you to think clearly now and tell me why would there be mutations that fulfill a purpose?
The trigger fish has a defensive mechanism that fulfills a purpose only suitable for defense.
Think clearly and ask yourslef how does a random mutation fulfill an exact purpose?
Now, let's assume that the ToE is 100% completely the truth, Now, with that knowledge can you not see that even if the ToE was completely true it would still by the evidence of all predator and prey relationships be a Guided process.
There is a reason why teeth are sharp and the foods that are eaten are vulnerable to sharp teeth, it is not an accident. You are a confessed person of Ignorance but now you must decide to be a person of knowledge
Random mutations do not fulfill any purpose at all. Mutations cannot have intent. They do not have purpose, there is no planning for the future of any kind at all.
The ancestors of trigger fish that have survived and reproduced most successfully are the ones who have had some kind of defense system that may have been the beginnings of what became its spines. It is pretty obvious why they would survive at greater rates, don't you think?
With regards to predator/prey relationships, as I have mentioned already you can have evolutionary arms races, where for example, the fastest cheetahs are the ones that pass on their genes because they can feed themselves and their families with what they can more easily catch, and the fastest gazelles are the ones who pass on their genes because they are best at getting away from the predators and can live to reproduce.
Certainly the evolution of the gazelle is 'guided' by its environment, as is that of the cheetah, but I didn't see any forward planning in that explanation, did you?
That is why natural selection is known as the blind watchmaker. That is really a reference to the way human brains are shaped, again by ancient environments, to see patterns where none exist.
You see design in nature, but as this example of the relationship between cheetahs and gazelles, actually none exists at all.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2010,09:44) Random mutations do not fulfill any purpose at all. Mutations cannot have intent. They do not have purpose, there is no planning for the future of any kind at all. The ancestors of trigger fish that have survived and reproduced most successfully are the ones who have had some kind of defense system that may have been the beginnings of what became its spines. It is pretty obvious why they would survive at greater rates, don't you think?
With regards to predator/prey relationships, as I have mentioned already you can have evolutionary arms races, where for example, the fastest cheetahs are the ones that pass on their genes because they can feed themselves and their families with what they can more easily catch, and the fastest gazelles are the ones who pass on their genes because they are best at getting away from the predators and can live to reproduce.
Certainly the evolution of the gazelle is 'guided' by its environment, as is that of the cheetah, but I didn't see any forward planning in that explanation, did you?
That is why natural selection is known as the blind watchmaker. That is really a reference to the way human brains are shaped, again by ancient environments, to see patterns where none exist.
You see design in nature, but as this example of the relationship between cheetahs and gazelles, actually none exists at all.
Stuart
The Cheetah has always been faster than the Gazelle there has never been any evolutionary difference.You would be able to prove evolution conclusively if you could just show how a gazelle began chasing and killing cheetahs
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 17 2010,11:11) The Cheetah has always been faster than the Gazelle there has never been any evolutionary difference. You would be able to prove evolution conclusively if you could just show how a gazelle began chasing and killing cheetahs
So you are claiming that the common ancestor between cheetahs and gazelles could run faster than itself??You cannot “prove anything conclusively” in science. That is a US$5 fine for inexcusable ignorance.
Gazelles don't generally kill cheetahs (I assume that was an accident, so it will not be charged extra).
Tuition owed stands at US$35.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2010,13:19) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 17 2010,11:11) The Cheetah has always been faster than the Gazelle there has never been any evolutionary difference. You would be able to prove evolution conclusively if you could just show how a gazelle began chasing and killing cheetahs
So you are claiming that the common ancestor between cheetahs and gazelles could run faster than itself??You cannot “prove anything conclusively” in science. That is a US$5 fine for inexcusable ignorance.
Gazelles don't generally kill cheetahs (I assume that was an accident, so it will not be charged extra).
Tuition owed stands at US$35.
Stuart
No, I am telling you they have no common ancestor other than the fact that they both were made from the earth.You really are without knowledge
Quote No, I am telling you they have no common ancestor other than the fact that they both were made from the earth. You really are without knowledge
Actually I have heard and read most of your creationist canards before, so I am 'with this knowledge'.Is that the end of your strawmen?
Can you actually disprove what evolution by natural selection really says?
Of course you can't, you actually don't have that knowledge yourself.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2010,18:06) Quote No, I am telling you they have no common ancestor other than the fact that they both were made from the earth. You really are without knowledge
Actually I have heard and read most of your creationist canards before, so I am 'with this knowledge'.Is that the end of your strawmen?
Can you actually disprove what evolution by natural selection really says?
Of course you can't, you actually don't have that knowledge yourself.
Stuart
The idea is that viable organisms will survive and as mutations occur mutations that help an organism to survive will be reproduced in the most viable organisms while the least viable organisms will go extinct.The fact is what we actually find in nature go far beyond what could account for mutations. your belief would somehow come up with spiders that did not always produce a web
BTW,
I am not a “creationist” I am a realist. To me it wouldn't matter whether animals were created as they are or evolved or a combination of both. I only discuss what is known.
Quote I am not a “creationist” I am a realist. To me it wouldn't matter whether animals were created as they are or evolved or a combination of both. I only discuss what is known.
How about you discuss what is known then.I mean known by paleontologists and geneticists and molecular biologists.
Not what you read on creationist websites, which, if you did read about real science more often, you would see is actually contradicted by evidence.
Quote The idea is that viable organisms will survive and as mutations occur mutations that help an organism to survive will be reproduced in the most viable organisms while the least viable organisms will go extinct.
I'll give you $5 off. Dawkins would probably find this about 50% correct.Quote The fact is what we actually find in nature go far beyond what could account for mutations.
And exactly what have you FOUND IN NATURE? Who is this WE?Before you answer that, just remember that the argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.
Quote your belief would somehow come up with spiders that did not always produce a web
Another strawman for the collection.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 17 2010,18:49) Quote I am not a “creationist” I am a realist. To me it wouldn't matter whether animals were created as they are or evolved or a combination of both. I only discuss what is known.
How about you discuss what is known then.I mean known by paleontologists and geneticists and molecular biologists.
Not what you read on creationist websites, which, if you did read about real science more often, you would see is actually contradicted by evidence.
Quote The idea is that viable organisms will survive and as mutations occur mutations that help an organism to survive will be reproduced in the most viable organisms while the least viable organisms will go extinct.
I'll give you $5 off. Dawkins would probably find this about 50% correct.Quote The fact is what we actually find in nature go far beyond what could account for mutations.
And exactly what have you FOUND IN NATURE? Who is this WE?Before you answer that, just remember that the argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.
Quote your belief would somehow come up with spiders that did not always produce a web
Another strawman for the collection.Stuart
No strawman, do you believe that Spiders were once without webs yes or no?BTW, Mentioning Dawkins in your argument is appeal to authority. The fact is Dawkins does not know any more than you. He also does the INSANE act of talking about God and critisizing God as if he believed that God was real and yet as I said if you call something Imaginary and then argue with it you have a mental problem.
You don't want to cure that mental problem because either you really have a severe mental defect that allows you to really be angry at imaginary beings or there is something inside you that is telling you it's more than imaginary and you are fighting that voice in you that is telling you that God is real.
Why do you feel it necessary to convince yourself that God is imaginary, do you also have to convince yourself so much of other imaginary beings?
Your argument of the entity is validation of your struggle not to believe.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
