Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas Page: <<   < prev  20 21 22 [23] 24   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 6:05:16 AM   
Amaros


Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Just picking up some points made above....

Someone mentions the eye, the complexity  and the apparent purposeful development of which is as perfect an example as you could possibly wish for that Evolution by Natural Selection is untrue.


The eye is one of Behe's examples, and one htat has been refuted. Genes occasionally make extra copies of thenselves - not all mutation is readily apparent - and two independent systems may arise that become inextriciably linked. This was predicted before Behe was even born.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
DNA/RNA "only" need to come into existence and the evolutionary merry go round starts to role, no problem there then ! In fact the molecules are so complicated that it is virtually impossible for them to have developed by chance based mechanisms and when that complexity was revealed pro evos should have immediately realised that their days were numbered.

Not really. Current theory suggests that DNA/RNA evolved in thin films. These things are simply particular combinations of amino acids that form into organic energy proccesors, amino acids redily form under certian conditions such as the conditions that applied when in fact, life on earth began.

These organic compunds readily combine into any number of more complex forms, the laws of physica again, which means that all over the pleant, these compounds were combining, until one occured that was able to proccess energy and metabolate. This is thought to occur more readily in very thin films of moisture, where the posibilities of combination are limited and hence more structured.

The second requirement for life is that such an organic compound be able to reproduce itself - and at the viral stage, what you have is less life than a complex chemical reaction in a cohesive form.

In any case, any organism that metabolises, tends to increase in size and weight - growth - and at some point it will grow to the point that it's structure cannot withstand outside pressure - air pressure, water pressure, whatever, and it will be crushed by it's own weight.

Thus the stressor for cell division: those - or that - primitive organism that evolved to reduce it's mass by splitting became the first true life form.

After that, it's primarily a matter of evolving the traits to survive temperarture changes, etc., expanding into all available niches.
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

99.99999% of mutations have DELETERIOUS affects.

True, what's the point? Natural selection is the process whereby the 0.00001 percent of mutations that are not deleterious and the even smaller number that that are actually beneficial, are promoted. This takes time and a lot of organisms, but in the end it's simply a statisitical function: in this case, there was plenty of time and optimal conditions.

If anything, the divine interventionist argument is probobly the most effective when it questions why conditions happened to be so perfect for this process to occur - it's apparently relatively rare, but then in a galaxy comprised of billions of star systems, over billions of years of existence, again, statistical probability argues that it will probobly occur somewhere, at soem time -  and here we are.

This is a somewhat more miraculous than a talking bush, IMO, as enchanting as that may sound to you.
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Oscillating Universes pose the problem of an infinitude of time. How have we arrived at now from a point in an infinite past.

Come again?
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
I repeat the Fossil record does not demonstrate evolution as currently taught and the the argment that it will when more is known goes right back to Darwin !

Cya

In what way does the fossil record not support the theory of natural selection? In the dinosaur record, there are clear examples of scales with featherlike and/or more skinlike properties - even alligator skin is more like skin than scale, and there is little difference in gross overall physical or nervous system morphology between reptiles and mammals, or even avians - it was apparently only those species that had evolved the ability to regulate their body temperature that survived that extinction.

Presumably, the cold blooded reptiles that did survive, were those who had evolved the trait of being able to go into hibernation, perhaps even originally to avoid predation during the breeding season of other species, overpopulation and subsequent resource depletion, adapting to environmental margins, etc., and/or able to buffer temperature changes environmentally, i.e., being partially or fully aquatic.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 441
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 6:47:47 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline
Best argument against intelligent design that I've ever heard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

99.99999% of mutations have DELETERIOUS affects.


< Message edited by Lordandmaster -- 11/14/2006 7:07:07 AM >

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 442
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 7:15:37 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
Supporters of  evo enthusiasticaly claim that only those changes that confer advantage may, due to Natural Selection , eventually  result in a new species arising. They hold to this belief notwithstanding the fact that their is no evidence to support it ! I well remember in a previous incarnation being pursued by a Sabre Toothed Tiger and I only escaped because the damn fool tripped over his long teeth ! How do evos explain that, the appearence of the long teeth I mean which did not confer advantage. Not only that it wasn't a new species anyway.

Many species have developed body bulk that eventually becomes disadvantageous.

Some species dont change at all. Why is that ?

Some Frogs for example produce zillions of  eggs with only a miniscule chance that any given egg will be fertilised. Evos bravely believe that by chance only those eggs that might be susceptable to mutation are in fact fertilised. A likely story !

I have read that during the 70/80s evolutionists thought their day had arrived when world wide attempts were made to improve wheat barley maize etc.by mutations caused by controlled breeding.
Experiments were quitely abandoned when all that was produced was worse maize etc. Does that worry evos. Not at all, Carry on Regardless !

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 11/14/2006 7:21:41 AM >

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 443
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 7:22:40 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline
A.  Who ever said the saber-tooth tiger's fangs didn't offer an advantage?  Paleontologists don't believe that.

B.  Even if the teeth were a liability, that would hardly invalidate the theory of evolution.  People always seem to misunderstand how evolution works, and I think the misleading phrase "survival of the fittest" has a lot to do with it.  Species can thrive even with serious liabilities.  All you have to do is survive long enough replace yourself with offspring (who must, of course, survive too).  You don't have to be perfect.  No species is.  At any rate, that's a better explanation of constitutional liabilities than intelligent design can ever offer.  What kind of dumass creator would create species with debilitating liabilities?  Should we rename it "not-really-all-that-intelligent design"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

I well remember in a previous incarnation being pursued by a Sabre Toothed Tiger and I only escaped because the damn fool tripped over his long teeth ! How do evos explain that, the appearence of the long teeth I mean which did not confer advantage.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 444
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 7:30:44 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
Another simple little point... Intelligence is probably the most advantageous characteristic one can imagine. Yes ?

Why then is it such a rare phenomenon ?
Why haven't many species developed intelligence. Such development should be almost inevitable according to Natural Selection.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 445
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 7:33:00 AM   
subjected2006


Posts: 248
Joined: 1/20/2006
Status: offline
but how do you know they weren't an advantage?
if a species is successful because they procreate more..then
maybe the cats with the biggest teeth got the "most action.".



_____________________________

a rose is a rose..

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 446
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 7:45:17 AM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

I have read that during the 70/80s evolutionists thought their day had arrived when world wide attempts were made to improve wheat barley maize etc.by mutations caused by controlled breeding.
Experiments were quitely abandoned when all that was produced was worse maize etc. Does that worry evos. Not at all, Carry on Regardless !



Corn was evolved by the Anasazi over thousands of years.  The fact that research scientists trying to work with it gave up after 10 years with no results does not really prove anything, seeksfemslave, apart from a lack of patience and available research money.

A perfect counter example to your point would be the domesticated almond.  A wild almond seed contains cyanide and is deadly poison.  But somebody thousands of years ago tasted one of the genetic freaks that did not have cyanide in it and went "yummy."  So the process of finding other ones that did not kill you when you ate them began.

Then they started cross-pollinating them until they had done two things.

1)  Removed the gene from the species of almond which causes the seed to contain cyanide.

2)  Increased the size of the seed so it fit better in your Almond Joy bar.

This took thousands of generations of a tree that lives 10s or 100s of years.  Most people in the modern world do not have the patience or funding to really do major genetic engineering on this sort of scale.

Every time you eat a domesticated almond, please give thanks to the human beings thousands of years ago who engaged in thousands of years of genetic engineering to make a species of almond that would not kill you when you ate it.

Sinergy


_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 447
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 7:48:44 AM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Another simple little point... Intelligence is probably the most advantageous characteristic one can imagine. Yes ?



I would disagree with this idea.

As Douglas Adams said, "Human beings thought they were the most intelligent species on the planet because of wars and pollution and killing and stuff, whereas Dolphins thought they were the most intelligent species on the planet because all they wanted to do was muck about in the water and have a good time."

While you may not agree with the empirical evidence, the human species is quickly overpopulating and polluting the system space we evolved in to the point where our species may not survive what we do to the place.  To me, this would be a counter argument to the idea that intelligence is an evolutionary advantage.

Sinergy


_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 448
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 7:55:38 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

To me, this would be a counter argument to the idea that intelligence is an evolutionary advantage.

Sinergy



This destructive behaviour is the same 'live in the moment' behaviour as many dumb creatures that have gone before us that have destroyed their habitat and you are right, this so called intelligence doesn't seem to have made any difference. I guess we aren't as evolved as we like to think we are.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 449
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 8:55:16 AM   
candystripper


Posts: 3486
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

From the newsmax website:
 
Faith Versus Science in Kansas 'Evolution Election'


Kansas Board of Education members who approved new classroom standards that call evolution into question faced a counterattack at the polls Tuesday from Darwin's defenders.


Five of the 10 seats on the board were up for election in the primary, the latest skirmish in a seesawing battle between faith and science that has opened Kansas up to international ridicule.

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/8/1/151000.shtml?s=ic


Haven't i already seen this movie?  Inherit the Wind, starring Spencer Tracy and Fredrick March, about a 1925 trial?
 
candystripper

(in reply to Level)
Profile   Post #: 450
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 10:00:23 AM   
subjected2006


Posts: 248
Joined: 1/20/2006
Status: offline
mmm
I think almonds were actually "developed" the way most indiginous species of plants were..
distributed by animals..a nut falling from a tree can only grow up to choke out its parent
and sibling trees.
but carried elsewhere there is a chance for it to mature fully.
right?
so it's in the trees best interest to be good and good for ya..
I think the almond did fine with out "our" intervention
just suggesting..

.


_____________________________

a rose is a rose..

(in reply to Daddy4UdderSlut)
Profile   Post #: 451
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 10:43:07 AM   
shtrbg


Posts: 28
Joined: 3/16/2005
Status: offline
ok, this thread has been going on for i don't even know a time period, but 23 pages, it will probably go on another 23.  So, my question, has this, and all have presented their cases, has this changed anyone's opinion as to evolution or creationism?

(in reply to subjected2006)
Profile   Post #: 452
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 10:53:03 AM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline
Probably hasn't changed the stance any of the people who are posting but if there are people just reading it they may be swayed.

I think that evolution, politics and now smoking, need their own fora.


_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to shtrbg)
Profile   Post #: 453
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 11:05:34 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
When the existence of an Almond that is not poisonous is used as an example of evolution by chance processes I feel the N_essers have lost the case. Just admit it thats all. Its still an Almond you know.

You will notice that when evos are cornered what they do is launch an attack on intelligent design.

Regardless of how Intelligence has been used it is still rare, which intuitively one would not expect if Natural Selection really existed and provided a route to improvement. The simple answer is that Natural Selection is a fallacy and only vested interest is sustaining it !


(in reply to shtrbg)
Profile   Post #: 454
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 11:40:56 AM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline
Well if the designer is so damned intelligent, Seeks, why isn't more of his creation smarter? You'd think that a smart designer would want to share the wealth. Or is that because we are special, the pinnacle of creation, made in his image - he is a he, right?

And you have the gall to accuse evolutionists of having a vested interest in defending their position and that they (shame shame!) attack creationsim. Well that's a honking great helping of pot / kettle / black isn't it. At least you could be internally consistent instead of applying double standards of proof and conduct.


_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 455
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 12:58:27 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
This thread reminds me of a Nietzche's observation. "Is man god's mistake or is god man's mistake?'

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Zensee)
Profile   Post #: 456
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 1:01:35 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Nietzsche is Pietzsche!!!!

Ron

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 457
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 2:10:47 PM   
shtrbg


Posts: 28
Joined: 3/16/2005
Status: offline
in England before the industrial revolution there was a white moth, when the industrial revolution hit the skies were darkened with smoke and smog.  The white moths started to develope into grey moths. the ones that stayed white were eaten by birds and insectavors (spelling) at a faster rate because they stood out in the dark skies and the grey moths at a slower rate because they didn't stand out.  that is a form and proof of evolution.  Not that that will sway anyone.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 458
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 2:23:58 PM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
Following your logic shtrbg if a black moth is a different species to a white moth then a black person is a different species to a white person.

Believing that is asking for trouble in the PC world we currently inhabit.
he he he he he he he

(in reply to shtrbg)
Profile   Post #: 459
RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 2:41:42 PM   
shtrbg


Posts: 28
Joined: 3/16/2005
Status: offline
people are not different species, the moth was the same species, it was an enviromental change, in time they may have become a different species.  Like now we are finding out maybe Neanderthal wasnt as different, but he developed in a colder region that made certain ways of evolving necessary, the heavier bone structure, the nose, sinuses and lungs they have to allow more airflow and to warm the air before it got to the lungs. These were necessary to live in the regions that were part of the ice age.  Our ancesters the homo sapians developed in warmer climates where this wasnt needed, but a taller slimmer sleeker body was needed.  There have been several species of hominads over the tracks of time, and each was specialized to the point of extinction, although the neanderthal lived about 70,000 years, not a bad reign.  Point being that this has been proven through research and science, the pope recently said there was no descrepancy between evolution and creationism.  intelligent design was made up by a right wing neo conservative religious nut wanting to get a fairytale put into the classroom as fact.Thank you that was part teaching and part rant

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 460
Page:   <<   < prev  20 21 22 [23] 24   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas Page: <<   < prev  20 21 22 [23] 24   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.148