Sasun Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Sip, you see mutation is not necessarily evolution. That's such a small link in the big chain. The virus changes, does that mean it evolves? Is there gonna be another species that is really an evolved species rather than just another virus but only a bit tougher? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted January 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 We are observing both evolution and mutation in our daily lives ... maybe not at the scale of dinosaur to human, but at an observable scale non the less. How else do you explain new viruses and bacteria that keep cropping up resistant to our previous ways of fighting them? How can you sit there and so comfortably claim evolution is just an "unproven theory" when RIGH BEFORE OUR EYES we see bacteria that have built up resistance to our anti biotics and are thus changing to survive better in a preceived hostile environment. And if you think the flu vaccine you took this year is going to protect you for years and years and years to come, since evolution and mutation are simply "unproven theories" ... then get I hope you have a lot of accumulated sick time at work, since we have definitely seen mutating viruses appearing with changes at the genetic level. What mostly gets lost in such discussions is that we only have a recorded history of several thousand years while evolutionary changes take place on the orders of millions and millions of years. What you are touching upon is essentially the semantics of evolution, and precisely from how one defines "evolution", whether you consider "microevolution" or "macroevolution". Not even the most adamant Bible thumper will deny what is meant by micro evolution, or within species variation. That is simply nothing species adapting and changing within itself. To assert that this leads to other more complex jumps is unsubstantiated is a assumption. After that evolution because a tautology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 The evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. Oh c'mon Armat... what you are saying are supporting arguments, small pieces of evidences only. And some are even questionable. For example, you are saying there were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. Is that a fact? Are you sure there weren't? What we know for sure is we have not found any evidence that there were any of these. However, like I said above there have been many surprises that changed the previous assumptions. Tomorrow there could be found some fossil of a strange bird dating 250 million years back - then there will be revisions of the existing assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Sip, you see mutation is not necessarily evolution. That's such a small link in the big chain. The virus changes, does that mean it evolves? Is there gonna be another species that is really an evolved species rather than just another virus but only a bit tougher? Sasun mutation is part of evolution. . What is evolution? Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations. Sometimes, individuals inherit new characteristics that give them a survival and reproductive advantage in their local environments; these characteristics tend to increase in frequency in the population, while those that are disadvantageous decrease in frequency. This process of differential survival and reproduction is known as natural selection. Non-genetic changes that occur during an organism's life span, such as increases in muscle mass due to exercise and diet, cannot be passed on to the next generation and are not examples of evolution Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Sasun for what I understand you do "believe" in evolution as a fact but disagree that we got all the evidance.Fine, I agree here nobady said that we found all the evidance since that is impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 The fact that we have seen mutation proves that genetic sequences in a species can in fact be changed. The fact that we have seen "micro evolution" as anon calls it, again supports this fact. I think the confusion comes from looking at a final "species" and ignoring the underlying fundamental building blocks ... i.e. the DNA. I don't know about you guys, but when I look at a horse, a donkey, a zebra, a camel, and a lama, and a zebra, I basically see the same creature. When I look at a wolf and big dog, or looking at a lion, leobard, tiger, and even my little kitty cat I home, I get the same fuzzy feeling that there is some tremendous amount of similarity. I can easily see a common ancestor or multiple ancestors from which these funny lookin beasts have all come from. Don't even get me started on birds and fish and insects ... How can you account for SOOO much similarity between the species? Why do almost all mamals have 2 eyes, a nose, and two ears? Why do they have 4 limbs (either 4 legs or 2 arms and 2 legs?) I keep hearing that there is no evidence that species evolved from each other while EVERYTHING I see points directly to that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted January 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Sip and Armat, you both assume evolution in order to argue for evolution. Your assumption doesn't show how these changes come about. It is only assumed that species changed overtime, it is not an empirical fact. You cannot verify that. It is not provable, or testable. Darwin, along with all of evolutionary science up until Gould and Eldridge, believed that change was incremental and gradual over time, in other words there should have been alot of intermediate forms. Well since this was an embarrasment for Darwinism, after the silly attempts at trying to bring forth "intermediates" such as "gemules", "bathybius", and "eozoon", punctuated equilibria seemed appealing since it once and for all answered the question for the missing fossils ( not proven ), it was simply a philosophical assumption. We found fossil A then we found fossil B. Fossil B is somewhat similar yet different from fossil A so therefore it MUST have evolved. How is that proving evolution? Well, it's not. It's just stating it and assuming it. Stating that there are within species variation is one thing, to then assume that species jump to other species, well, that is a blanket assertion that lacks verification. It is simply asserted in the scientific world and believed. Evolution is a like class of faith yet evolutionists will coldly deny this. Arguing this point is pointless as it is. You argue that evolution is already proven without proving it and arguing a negative. When was it established and proven that species change into more complex species and this was because of hapahazard random mutations? Mind you that most mutations that do occur in organisms are harmful. It is mathematically improbable for species to have evolved by mutations. Murray Eden of MIT brilliantly proved this at the Wistar Institute Conference in 1966. So if evolution could not take place with randomness, then all you have left is design, which would require a creator with intelligent design and purpose. In fact, the mathematicians found that mathematically evolution could never have begun nor continued through randomness. Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells). Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism! *George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research on hemoglobin also,—and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit—and, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die. After groundbreaking research, and more than a century since Darwin, I don't see any reason to accept evolution. Whether it is citing the moth as an example, or the antibiotics and genes resisting. All these examples forget one basic thing, these are examples of microevolution which I have not denied. The point is not to dispute whether microevolution happens, but whether it means anything at all. Any scientific theory or hypothesis must be proved first possible, then probable, then certain. To be a possible theory, it must be reconcilable with many facts , to be a probable theory, it must be reconcilable with many more to be a certain and proven theory ( we have already established that evolution is not mathematically probable by the work of Murray Eden of MIT ), it must be reconcilable with all the facts. Whenever it is irreconcilable with any fact, it should be rejected, as it cant be a true theory. Every true theory passes through these three stages of possibility, probability, and certainty. A theory is not science until it is certainly true, and so becomes knowledge. Evolution is in a desperate struggle to show that it may possibly be a true theory or hypothesis. Yet some who are ready to admit that they are "scientists" claim evolution a proven theory. It is clear, to me at least anyway, that this theory cannot withstand scrutiny, therefore must be rejected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Anonymous ... just because something is mathematically unlikely, doesn't mean it can't happen. I will abandon that theory when you have a better one to replace it with. So what is your alternative? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Oh and just to clarify my position so I don't sound like a naive dumbass ... mathematically there is a very low chance of winning in Vegas ... but there are those that hit the jackpot every once in a while. Even in lotto drawings where chances are one in 80 million, you end up having several winners sometimes. The key point to make is that there are a LOT of people trying. Now sure here things may seem faaar less likely but compound that in millions of years and COUNTLESS species gettin it on and now it's a whole different ball game. A single DNA strand changing in such a way as to form another survivable DNA may be unlikely ... but just imagine how many such things are happening simultanously! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted January 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Anonymous ... just because something is mathematically unlikely, doesn't mean it can't happen. I will abandon that theory when you have a better one to replace it with. So what is your alternative? Ahh the famous "What is the alternative?". Often times I marvel at how many people are willing to believe something because it seems to be able to explain it "the best". My friend who is a bio major at Berkeley eventaully said your same answer in our debate of "Evolution offers the best possible explanation". Mathemathetical improbability doesn't mean impossibility indeed, but to compare the statistics of the odds of winning in vegas, to the millions of nucleotides is not a valid comparison for you will get different odds, hence it is quite likely not a probable occurence, and in fact most mutations that do occur are negative. As for alternatives ? What alternative is it that you seek? If evolution is something that relies on more faith than a bible thumper has in Jesus, or Agent Mulder in UFOs, then surely it must have stood up to scrutiny and evidence, but it lacks everything science is supposed to uphold, and has transformed into a tautology and a like class of faith, since it is nothing more than a philosophical assumption that we evolved, not an empirical one. The other alternative, is obvious, and that is creation, that there is a purpose and intelligence that has guided all living things on this planet and is responsible for their creation, and indeed this is what the fossil record shows, species randomly appearing out of nowhere only to disappear without a trace. Our DNA one can argue is a program that contains our information, a blueprint. To alter that is to ruin it. A program is something that describes processes that when carried out produce an end result. That end result could be a bird, a human being, plant, a planet or even a universe. When you look at the outline of a cloud, the branches of a tree, the path of a river, or the veins in your arms, you are looking at fractal geometry. We are a product of mathematics, a medium known to be predetermined and mathematics is the language of the universe. Our body contains the numbers 11, 22, and 33, precise numbers and all multiples of 11. These numbers are encoded within our DNA. This is only the result of intelligent thought. We have 33 vertebrae. Our skull has 22 bones. Our ribs have 11 bones. This is surely not a result of randomness, or is it? If I make this a connection to Freemasonry and other occult secret societies why 33 is the highest degree in Masonry, and why most major events around the world occur near the 33rd parallel, and why events such as 9/11 contains so much of the number 11, I'd probably be name called and laughed at, yet what is it that these people know, which ties in to my conspiracy thread, that we don't know? Of course, ignroe this last paragraph for I'm just a paranoid delusional person, as my avatar is testament to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Sasun mutation is part of evolution. Yeah Armat, I agree but that little part is all we have seen. Sasun for what I understand you do "believe" in evolution as a fact but disagree that we got all the evidance.Fine, I agree here nobady said that we found all the evidance since that is impossible. I believe we have evolved from simpler beings but I don't believe it happened by chance. In other words I believe in an evolution theory but not in Darwin's evolution theory. There must be some kind of external influence, a driving force to create order. That's a natural law that has been observed and proven. Darwin's theory wants us to believe that a higher order can be established by chance. So for me it is both counter intuitive and contradicts a certain law of physics. So I am inclined to think that the theory of evolution must be revised to include a driving force (or design like Anon says) in order to make more sense. However, I have no facts of the driving force that I believe exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 By the way, Anon, for the record I just want to say your posts here make excellent points ... well yah up to the last paragraph of that last post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Hmm, im feelling like noone read my post, or that who read has no comment on it... Why woul dyou not comment on it?? simply cause theres nothing to argue to it.. lol... you cant... So if math doesnt proov it, and even in one out a a few triliion it is possible, then lets make it more simple... Why did as you guys say evolution occur? What was the driving force of it? How did a globe of nothing more than bacteria, *thaught to be unicellular* swon out of thw ocean, onto land, survived for a few million years, then has multiplied itself from a unicellular to multicellular organism, created for itself, on its onw what we know as genes (DNA RNA etc..) then created females of itself.. LOL.. and then evolved for male and femalse to get together, "get in on" and multiply that way now, as apose to whatever way it used before to multiply, then how did it evolve into soo many different organisms, both aquatic and land based... If you can tell me how bacterial globe came to evolve into what we are today, then i will consider to maybe think about evolution havent anymeanbing whatsoever.... I know you guys understand how complex the operations and different systems of the human body are, how in your RIGHT minds can you say it came to be by chance, and by evolving, which is backed by a force that noone can explain..???? nothing in evolution adds up, NOTHING! Mutation .... yes ofcourse but mutation is by far not evolution, because by the very word evolution you are taling about a length of time which doesnt match with mutation.. Mutation is not a change to suit your environment more supremely, its merel cells, adapting to there conditions as it is... My body can be considered to mutate when i run and when i rest from it... but it would be evolution if i grow another arm from my chest in order to live more supremely.. Evolutin is dead..... They just forgot to burry it.... LMAO It will be out of textbooks soon, they will restate everything about the theory, and make it thaught as a theory not as fact.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted January 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Hmm, im feelling like noone read my post, or that who read has no comment on it... Why woul dyou not comment on it?? simply cause theres nothing to argue to it.. lol... you cant... So if math doesnt proov it, and even in one out a a few triliion it is possible, then lets make it more simple... Why did as you guys say evolution occur? What was the driving force of it? How did a globe of nothing more than bacteria, *thaught to be unicellular* swon out of thw ocean, onto land, survived for a few million years, then has multiplied itself from a unicellular to multicellular organism, created for itself, on its onw what we know as genes (DNA RNA etc..) then created females of itself.. LOL.. and then evolved for male and femalse to get together, "get in on" and multiply that way now, as apose to whatever way it used before to multiply, then how did it evolve into soo many different organisms, both aquatic and land based... If you can tell me how bacterial globe came to evolve into what we are today, then i will consider to maybe think about evolution havent anymeanbing whatsoever.... I know you guys understand how complex the operations and different systems of the human body are, how in your RIGHT minds can you say it came to be by chance, and by evolving, which is backed by a force that noone can explain..???? nothing in evolution adds up, NOTHING! Mutation .... yes ofcourse but mutation is by far not evolution, because by the very word evolution you are taling about a length of time which doesnt match with mutation.. Mutation is not a change to suit your environment more supremely, its merel cells, adapting to there conditions as it is... My body can be considered to mutate when i run and when i rest from it... but it would be evolution if i grow another arm from my chest in order to live more supremely.. Evolutin is dead..... They just forgot to burry it.... LMAO It will be out of textbooks soon, they will restate everything about the theory, and make it thaught as a theory not as fact.. Gevo, don't worry, I've already addressed this issue and it is a tautology. Unless evolution can bring forth solid evidence of empirically verifying species jumping to another species, there is no longer any room for discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Species is a human defined categorization with a greta deal of variability. We discover new "species" all the time...and clearly - as Darwin saw - many of these are specific adaptations for environments etc etc. That you question evolution...yet are all impressed by various (all of the above) conspiracy theories...well doesn't really say much for your opinion on anything - IMO) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 (edited) Please understand a few things: - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981: "Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. ... There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination." Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986: "...in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution": (http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml) "...evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun." Edited January 30, 2004 by THOTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Who knows, maybe there is some truth in evolution, as Thoth was pictured like this in ancient times :lol2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Yeah, I see Anonymouse. I believe we have evolved but Darwin's theory may not be correct. There should be a driving force behind the evolution which is not acknowledged in his theory. It doesn't take into account the notion of entropy (I think this was discussed somewhere else in the forum) and so contradicts to the universal fact that things when left alone get less orderly/evolved not more orderly/evolved. Therefore, for the evolution to be true there must be a driving force. What is it? Could Darwin's natural selection serve as a driving force? Does it qualify as such? That is the question I am curious to know. Oppurtunity is th driving force. Does water run downhill because of suopernaturla intervention..no there is such a thing as gravity..and this complels this action. In nature - which is both chaotic and orderly (but ultimatly variable and unpredictable)..and (demonstratably) mutable - we see that organic life mutates and adapts and that often these mutations prove the difference for survival thus those with these new traits do so - and reproduce - etc etc - its all really very simple..and i do suggest reading Darwin himself (as I have) - Origin of the species is fascinating stuff - anyone with an open and inquisitive mind cannot help but be amazed...and no need to supppose forces and the like - for which no proof whatsoever can be generated - to expalin what is easily understood and plain to see... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Gurgen - that is a current picture..photography had not been invented in ancient times! Our technology has EVOLVED quite a bit since then.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 More...a must read if you really doubt (and care)...go ahead...take your time...lol http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Gurgen - that is a current picture..photography had not been invented in ancient times! Our technology has EVOLVED quite a bit since then.... No shit Sherlock You know very well I mean the Egyptian statue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Anon I actually took the time to read everything you wrote and copied and pasted ones as well just to understand your perspective. It is true that Darwinian evolution does not explain the process of evolution completely but this is where you get lost. You are talking about the tail of the Cat and saying it is not a tail but Darwin said sure it is a cat and it probably involved from much earlier versions of the same cat. At the time Darwin guessed the chance theory but as science progressed we now understand much more about the DNA, Genes etc hence we are yet to understand the process completely. The question is if you take an earlier fossil of a bird with teeth and feathers and the intermediate fossil of a bird and the final bird "version" then we are concluding that it has involved! The point is we are looking the evidence of involved specie. Is that not evolution? Just because we don't know exact mechanism of that process it does not dismiss the evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 Thoth as I understand Anon and Sasun correctly, they are not saying there was no evolution but Darwinian version fails to explain the "how" it happens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 (edited) Thoth as I understand Anon and Sasun correctly, they are not saying there was no evolution but Darwinian version fails to explain the "how" it happens Well - thats not what I see right off the bat - if you look at the first post. And in fact, if so, tey are still essentially wrong... "... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd. I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. " - Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988), from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985). Great guy...got to meet him once! Oh and please also read: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html (actually back it up and read the whole thing - as i posted earlier) Edited January 30, 2004 by THOTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 How is evolution a fact? What part of 'theory' did you not understand? Making it a fact to soothe your own insecurity and ignorance because it has to be so, does not necessarily make it so. Yes who is the ignorant one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.