- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ April 10 2010,14:16) Apart from its use as a model for robotic programming, and its related use as a problem solving strategy: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html#what
…The theory of evolution provides humankind with more than just a scientific narrative of life’s origins and progression. It also yields invaluable technologies.
# For instance, the concept of molecular clocks—based on the accumulation of mutations in DNA over the eons—underlies applications such as the DNA analyses used in criminal investigations.
# DNA analysis of how pathogens evolve produces useful information for combating the outbreak and spread of disease. Accelerated evolution in laboratories has improved vaccines and other therapeutic proteins.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article….y-world
Predictions can be made, like the one which used evolution by natural selection to predict that the Piltdown would turn out to be a hoax, and these examples too:
Darwin realised that the Earth must be very old for there to have been enough time for all the life on it to evolve. It has turned out to be even older than he thought.
He also predicted that transitional fossils would be discovered, and millions (trillions if you count microfossils) have been. Researchers have even been able to predict the age and kind of rocks in which certain transitional fossils should occur, as with the half-fish, half-amphibian Tiktaalik.
http://www.newscientist.com/article….ve.html
Do you want more?
Stuart
My point remains. A virus for example can adapt and change to survive and preserve itself with the aid of it's host.Adaptation for survival is not one species changing into another. Humans have adapted to live in every environment. I have yet to see Homo Neuva Sapien, a new separate species that is more advanced and cannot reproduce with homo sapiens.
Evolution hasn't made these predictions possible Stu.
Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations.
Notice the recombine option. We all know that genes recombine, that is no secret and is not exclusive to the Theory of Evolution. The argument about mutation via damage to genes is an interesting one because mutations of this type are not the result of what is already in the gene pool tend to disadvantage the design. e.g., if you add or take away from a dragonfly's bodily design, you would most likely end up with dragonfly that doesn't fly as well or not at all. And any so-called improvement is absolutely possible with different combinations of genes within the gene pool itself. The gene pool of a species has a lot of information that can produce an inferior design to the best design. The environment helps weed out the unfavorable combinations. Mutations are not needed to explain this, only recombination or re-assortment of genes in the gene pool.
A mutation is said to be a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene. Sometimes mutations in DNA can cause changes in the way a cell behaves. This is because genes contain the instructions necessary for a cell to work. If some of the instructions to the cell are wrong, then the cell may not know what it is supposed to do!
There are two ways in which DNA can become mutated:
- Mutations can be inherited. This means that if a parent has a mutation in his or her DNA, then the mutation is passed on to his or her children.
- Mutations can be acquired. This happens when environmental agents damage DNA, or when mistakes occur when a cell copies its DNA prior to cell division.
In both cases the result is usually detrimental.
Evolution argues that mutations create superior designs, whereas it is within a species gene pool that allows for the best possible design and mutations are actually detrimental. For example, do you think Usain Bolt's amazing ability to run at speed is the result of damage to genes that improved his running skills or the best combination of genes? I say the latter and I bet you would say that too. To argue that his running ability is the result of damage to a gene that actually improved that genes instructions is not only fanciful thinking, but is exactly what your theory suggests has happened many times.
t8
Quote Adaptation for survival is not one species changing into another. Humans have adapted to live in every environment. I have yet to see Homo Neuva Sapien, a new separate species that is more advanced and cannot reproduce with homo sapiens.
But you should not expect to see it in your lifetime, should you. What do you mean by “advanced”? Do you mean “more suited to survival in its environment”? That is what evolution by natural selection says.Quote Evolution hasn't made these predictions possible Stu.
Darwin predicted that we should find intermediary species and offshoot species that went to extinction, and we have, and we are finding many new ones every year.Quote Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations. Notice the recombine option. We all know that genes recombine, that is no secret and is not exclusive to the Theory of Evolution. The argument about mutation via damage to genes is an interesting one because mutations of this type are not the result of what is already in the gene pool tend to disadvantage the design.
e.g., if you add or take away from a dragonfly's bodily design, you would most likely end up with dragonfly that doesn't fly as well or not at all. And any so-called improvement is absolutely possible with different combinations of genes within the gene pool itself. The gene pool of a species has a lot of information that can produce an inferior design to the best design. The environment helps weed out the unfavorable combinations. Mutations are not needed to explain this, only recombination or re-assortment of genes in the gene pool.
Recombination alone cannot explain speciation. Most genetic mutation is actually neutral, it affects non-coding DNA or makes a change that has no effect on the operation of the protein for which the gene codes. Some mutations are deleterious, and that partly explains why 5 out of every 6 fertilized eggs do not implant and develop into an embryo. It is also important to remember that you can suffer mutations to important genes that have no effect because you have two copies of nearly every gene, one from each parent. It is a simplification to say it, but if one copy ceases to produce its protein the other will. An example of this is cystic fibrosis, where you only get the disease if you inherit the CF gene from both of your parents.Quote A mutation is said to be a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene. Sometimes mutations in DNA can cause changes in the way a cell behaves. This is because genes contain the instructions necessary for a cell to work. If some of the instructions to the cell are wrong, then the cell may not know what it is supposed to do! There are two ways in which DNA can become mutated:
# Mutations can be inherited. This means that if a parent has a mutation in his or her DNA, then the mutation is passed on to his or her children.
# Mutations can be acquired. This happens when environmental agents damage DNA, or when mistakes occur when a cell copies its DNA prior to cell division.In both cases the result is usually detrimental.
But it is only mutations to the germ cell line that will be inherited.Quote Evolution argues that mutations create superior designs,
No it doesn’t. It is not an act of creation, it is not design, and it would depend how you defined “superior”, but the only valid definition is the one above: “better suited to survival (and reproduction) in its environment”.Quote whereas it is within a species gene pool that allows for the best possible design and mutations are actually detrimental. For example, do you think Usain Bolt's amazing ability to run at speed is the result of damage to genes that improved his running skills or the best combination of genes? I say the latter and I bet you would say that too. To argue that his running ability is the result of damage to a gene that actually improved that genes instructions is not only fanciful thinking, but is exactly what your theory suggests has happened many times.
The ability to run fast is the result of the combined action of many genes. Because of this, the superiority of his running ability over mine is that he has a better allele than me in most of the areas that count. No doubt he has fast-twitch muscle fibres, a tendency to greater muscle mass, perhaps a lower centre of gravity, and so on. In each case we both have the same genes or locations for information, but his version is a different one from mine. Bolt’s better running ability is almost certainly not the result of beneficial mutations but of sexual recombination that gave a slightly freaky new mixture of the usual alleles in him, the alleles that are already available in the gene pool.Mutation gives rise to variation in the population, and when the whole population drifts genetically or is genetically pushed in a particular direction by the environment, then the cumulated change will eventually result in speciation. That is why the creationist claim of “microevolution” in the absence of a definition of “kind” is arrant nonsense. “Microevolution”, given enough time, IS evolution with the emergence of new species.
Stuart
Stu,
You are farcical. Yes, bold brash sucker punch.What evolutionary changes have taken place in Man that has fundamentally changed him?
He still has One head, One Heart, two eyes, two ears hair on his body (Though SOCIETY is frowning on it).
One nose, two nostrils, a mouth with a tongue, teeth, a neck, shoulders, arms two, forearm, hands, fingers 10 altogether, two them thumbs as ever, fingernails.
Ribs, same number as before, Stomach – internal organs as before, Sex organs – same as ever, legs thighs, shins, feet, toes, as before, toe nails…
What has changed in Mankind – oh, that we wished we could change?
Breath under water? We have tools, apparatus for that.
Run faster (Why?) we have vehicles for that.
Fly like the bird (be very tiring and lose the wonder?) We have Aircrafts for that.
Walk on water – we have boats for that.
Create our own food – sadly – we have you for that (Those little yellow and green pills for vitamins, iron, phosphate, calcium, A, B,C,D and E, etc).
Grow more crops – Again – sadly you again with Genetics, oil seed Rape, animal feeds containing animal bones (causing defects in cattle…) We have Science to thank for that also.
Time travel, Ha – there's a dream – and yet a reality (Do you know how?)
What else, over to you, what has fundamentally changed in man – don't talk about Industrialisation, Mechanisation, Electronification, Computerisation – these are tools USED by Man – not man himself.
Stu, you resort to the Animals and plants, fauna and flora, for your proof of evolution – Stu, it wasn't to the animals and Plants that god gave his Image and Holy Spirit – It was to Mankind – talk about THAT!!
t8,
Can we confine discussions to Humanity, not Animals and plants. Going that way is lie leaving a massive hole open in the discussion for Stu and his ilk to walk through when the going gets tough for them.
Confine them to answer questions and don't let them off the hook when they don't know an answer – Cannot refute a claim. Realise also, that denial of God also needs to be 'proved' by them – not just “Oh I don't believe …because then I can do what ever I like and therefore am not accountable to no one in the end” – That is such a stupid statement it defies belief that nay intelligent sentient being could pass that off as a defence.
Even base animal, plants also, respect the authority of their maker and have a fear of Him – even animals 'fear mankind' for we were put in above them (p.s. man is only attacked when he is either being Stupid, Naive, foolish or all those and the animal is desperate. Sharks don't attack man except when man acts like a dying fish (bad swimmer) or a Seal (Man on surfboard). Lions don't attack man unless it is old and cannot catch normal prey – and usually children who stray into danger areas – the animal has a right to hunt!!
The purpose of such animals is to help maintain a healthy earth by removing the weak and sickly animals ones – a biological unhealthy Animal weeding system! How wonderful – otherwise what? The sick breed with the Sick – Like humans do!!Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 11 2010,22:35) Stu,
You are farcical. Yes, bold brash sucker punch.What evolutionary changes have taken place in Man that has fundamentally changed him?
He still has One head, One Heart, two eyes, two ears hair on his body (Though SOCIETY is frowning on it).
One nose, two nostrils, a mouth with a tongue, teeth, a neck, shoulders, arms two, forearm, hands, fingers 10 altogether, two them thumbs as ever, fingernails.
Ribs, same number as before, Stomach – internal organs as before, Sex organs – same as ever, legs thighs, shins, feet, toes, as before, toe nails…
What has changed in Mankind – oh, that we wished we could change?
Breath under water? We have tools, apparatus for that.
Run faster (Why?) we have vehicles for that.
Fly like the bird (be very tiring and lose the wonder?) We have Aircrafts for that.
Walk on water – we have boats for that.
Create our own food – sadly – we have you for that (Those little yellow and green pills for vitamins, iron, phosphate, calcium, A, B,C,D and E, etc).
Grow more crops – Again – sadly you again with Genetics, oil seed Rape, animal feeds containing animal bones (causing defects in cattle…) We have Science to thank for that also.
Time travel, Ha – there's a dream – and yet a reality (Do you know how?)
What else, over to you, what has fundamentally changed in man – don't talk about Industrialisation, Mechanisation, Electronification, Computerisation – these are tools USED by Man – not man himself.
Stu, you resort to the Animals and plants, fauna and flora, for your proof of evolution – Stu, it wasn't to the animals and Plants that god gave his Image and Holy Spirit – It was to Mankind – talk about THAT!!
How about you get back to us when you know something about the topic of the thread.Stuart
Ah Stu,
Nothing to say,
That's a wonder, eh?
Guess what – many stray
and add to the affray
Who here isn't fey?
don't count me in – no way!
cos back in the day
when we all ate hay (yes man didn't always eat meat – can Science prove that! yes it can! Does the scripture tell us – yes it does!)
The first Adam Sinned – his Holiness now fray
Because of him – we all gotta pay
You don't need an xray
to see that we stray
But Jesus: unto sinless death he did obey
his life – apart from God – down it lay
Back to life in victory, yeah!!
the second Adam brought sin to bay
Our King, Lord, Saviour, Brother – all they!
So there it is – my summ'ray
Just Ask me a question – any que'ray.Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 12 2010,00:43) Ah Stu, Nothing to say,
That's a wonder, eh?
Guess what – many stray
and add to the affray
Who here isn't fey?
don't count me in – no way!
cos back in the day
when we all ate hay (yes man didn't always eat meat – can Science prove that! yes it can! Does the scripture tell us – yes it does!)
The first Adam Sinned – his Holiness now fray
Because of him – we all gotta pay
You don't need an xray
to see that we stray
But Jesus: unto sinless death he did obey
his life – apart from God – down it lay
Back to life in victory, yeah!!
the second Adam brought sin to bay
Our King, Lord, Saviour, Brother – all they!
So there it is – my summ'ray
Just Ask me a question – any que'ray.
Get back to us when you have something of substance to contribute.Stuart
Hey stu,
Here is a scientific conundrum for you: How long is a piece of string?
And don't go all woolly on me and say “Frayed Knot!!”
Actually you would be half way there – there is a clue there – The answer is worth some money but I give it freely if you don't know.
Ah,
You such a bad sport – poor stu is in a pickle… cos like Trinity, Science just fell while in his stu-artship!.
Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 12 2010,00:49) Ah, You such a bad sport – poor stu is in a pickle… cos like Trinity, Science just fell while in his stu-artship!.
How about you stop posting here, and give yourself a couple of hours to sober up.It is not a good look for the site that you are bringing it into such disrepute by posting this piffle as a mod.
Stuart
Stu,
How about you just make suitable responses and stop worrying about JustAskin.
You look really ridiculous right now – i wouldn't want anyone to say that JustAskin was berating a minor because such you seem right now
strip away your Science is God and you see it is as powerful yet wooden as a giant redwood or mighty oak or mountain ash. mighty, yes, but wooden all the same.
Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 12 2010,01:14) Stu, How about you just make suitable responses and stop worrying about JustAskin.
You look really ridiculous right now – i wouldn't want anyone to say that JustAskin was berating a minor because such you seem right now
strip away your Science is God and you see it is as powerful yet wooden as a giant redwood or mighty oak or mountain ash. mighty, yes, but wooden all the same.
I have complained about your post above. Your posting is off-topic to the point where you are making a mockery of the forum.Stuart
Complain all you like – it is all in line with the topic — you just can't answer and hiding behind your ignorance.
Many other, as in my rap, have entered 'off topic' and get “Ok, you off topic but anyway -just this reply once”
Any way, Am I Knot talking about evolution – man's so called Evolution?
stu, don't string this out any longer and tie yourself up in knots – your arguments are getting frayed – and I can see you giving up this thread soon cos of all the needling – yeah, I got an eye for this kinda thing, a reputation for stitching people up with their own woolly arguments – yeah, ain't knitting JA can't fathom (in unity with and, guidance from the Holy Spirit) – even though I wondered about you at first (Yeah I admit it – said it already – I thought you were strong but you just an empty cotton reel)
Sew, for every knit-one from you – I'll Pearl one back.
What you gotta say now, even as much as a thimble full? (And you know that even that can be Massive – expand the tiniest element and whoooph!! any uncontrolled energy release is enormous and awesomely devastating (For this reason God does not allow us to do this on a large scale)
What Stu, even here you can't say anything – Wow – What has happened to the great adversary – can your God not advise you of anything to say – I bet he wooden leave you in a stew if he were real?
I don't own this thread, and I didn't start it, but nevertheless I've got plenty to say in it. Just ask me a sensible question.
Stuart
t8,
As I have given on stu – “know when to stop beating thine adversary !! – better – know to stop beating thyself over thine adversary!” – i will reveal the answer/solution to the Conundrum.
but first – last chance for the win the prestigious prize: “A whole day without JustAskin's wit”
Any takers : I'm willing to take a group answer: (Funny – Stu says he knows the answer but spent ages making a fool of himself instead of simply stating it – weird!)
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 15 2010,09:12) OK. How does something come from nothing?
I await your sensible answer Stu.
I refer you to the last three times I gave you a sensible answer to this.Stuart
It was “I don't know” wasn't it?
Therefore you don't know if God exists or not.
That's it isn't it?You should make the statement, “I don't know if there is a God or not”.
We are waiting for that statement because this is what it has all come down to for you.
You can say it now in the next post…..
Then after your admission, we can move onto something else.
We are waiting now.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
