Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Ice Age Civilization


  • Please log in to reply
695 replies to this topic

#121    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 15 September 2012 - 08:10 AM

View PostArbitran, on 14 September 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

Fine, fine, well done; you've riled me up enough that I'll bother to argue with you some more, because the quality of your information is so appallingly poor that I have to say something​.



You wish.



Except that I don't. Where you got that idea I haven't the slightest clue... We haven't even discussed much of cellular, system, or molecular biological facets yet, apart from all that I had to explain about cell death earlier...



That's because evolution is not about purely random mutation, you're just leaving out one of the most vital aspects: natural selection. Natural selection is a filter and magnifier of mutation, steering it a direction which will be beneficial for the organism in question. And it is no "assumption" whatsoever, the species I've listed for you: that you assume that yourself only demonstrates that you haven't bothered to do any research, and just jumped to your own, baseless conclusions. Again...



Interesting, because given I am a biologist, and work with other biologists on a regular basis, I beg to differ. Heredity can indeed give rise to new species, and, again, is among the driving forces of the evolutionary process.



You misunderstand. Again. You were claiming that somehow a monkey "transformed" into a man one day; which didn't happen, and will never happen. Groups evolve, not individuals, as I've said before. Hominin human ancestors did diverge from chimpanzees 4.1 million years ago, as both fossil and molecular evidence demonstrate overwhelmingly. That you misunderstand and deny that fact is irrelevant.



You're clearly just reading from a creationist website. The "spontaneous appearance of life" and abiogenesis are two different things. The "SAOL" ("spontaneous appearance of life") hypothesis is an antiquated one from the 19th Century, which claimed that life on earth diversified from worms and maggots, which were thought to "spontaneously arise" out of mud. This was later disproved. The concept of abiogenesis (which has nothing to do with evolution, by the way, since evolution is about the diversity and development of life, not its origin) which exists today is completely unrelated, and well supported by fossil, molecular, and experimental evidence. Yes, in the lab, numerous experiments have taken place over the past century which demonstrate conclusively that amino acids and proto-proteins can form organically.



You wish. Excuse me while I go and laugh my ass off. You're certainly not right; I considered ending he conversation, again, because you refuse to learn. But I'll keep trying... as foolish as it is to try and teach someone who refuses education.



That's because saltation is not a majority view in biology. Punctuated equilibrium is more reasonable, but still not substantiated effectively enough to have a majority subscription. And mutations in duplicate genes are one among numerous factors which can result in the process of speciation over time. I didn't dismiss any of them; saltation is improbable and unsubstantiated; punctuated equilibrium is better, but still not majority; and mutation in gene duplication is an irrefutable fact.



The majority I refer to is the bulk of the biological community; none of whom are "mindless parrots" (ironically, you yourself would better fit that description, given you're just spouting long-ago debunked creationist arguments, not any original ones). And you can pretend that you are using "technical terms"; it's clear that you're just borrowing from fringe sites that happen to have access to Wikipedia.



You give no evidence of this whatsoever, and you are 100% incorrect. You have given no case to substantiate that there are "limits" to allelic gene flow and evolution. All evidence demonstrates that it is among the primary driving forces of evolution. Do yourself a favor, and read a remedial science textbook.



Intriguing you think so, because everything you've so far only demonstrates your own ignorance of modern biology. You have given not a single refutation of any of the information I have presented.  



Interesting. Your trolling skills are no less potent than ever, but fortunately I can see through them now. You're just trying to rile me up by telling me I haven't studied. Honestly, when you spend years studying to become a biologist, dedicate years studying marine species, observe African ecology and animal behavior, participate in studies of evolutionary epigenetics and the fossilized structure of theropodan crania, and any number of other things, then maybe we could talk about evolutionary science on equal ground. You need to prove yourself, son. And so far all you've proven is your own monstrous ignorance of evolutionary biology.



We haven't been friends to start with.
Oh so you have some fight left.Since my editing skills are not as good as yours i will use the old point system to reply to your objections.Don't read my last point if you are a emotional person and if you get emotionally offended easily,and if you do just know that i am only stating it in the spirit of our discussion.

First let me state that there are some merits in the modern theory of evolution which is thought provoking and slightly digestable,i never rejected the theory completely until you started stating it as a scientific fact,which is the biggest insult to a person who really admires the objectivity of science.

1.Yes i agree we have not been discussing much of cell biology,systems biology etc as you have been constantly trying to avoid the same.I brought it up on numerous occasions but you fail to reply even once,trying to only talk about falsified pro macroevolution case studies which rely on wild assumptions (so and so species evolved from this simpler species without any intermediates with half formed organs).Because of your constant ignorance of the same i assumed you don't have a clue of what i am talking about.

2.My friend 'Abiogenesis' (i.e life assembled itself from non-living things on itself randomly) mind you for which there is no proof or reproducability still and 'random beneficial mutations' (which is as good as believing that a short circuit in your computer is going to make it better) are the first two pillars of theory of evolution,'Natural selection' comes into play only after a beneficial mutation has manifested itself which can only happen after life has first evolved.In either scenario 'random beneficial mutation' is the main and only agent to drive evolution by bringing into existence Mutants after which natural selection can take place,so if you are an evolutionist of any salt you cannot refute or understate the importance of 'random beneficial mutations' to the theory of evolution.Probably you feel 'natural selection' and as you say 'heredity' is more important since you have probably focused your 'studies' on these.

3.http://www.biology-o...ionary/Heredity.I will not bother explaining to you the meaning or heredity again or how it cannot give rise to new species a)because it is concerned with transfer of genetic material from parents to offsprings b)it requires organism of the same species to reproduce and cause the transfer in the first place.I will also help you by telling you that what you actually mean is genetic recombination at the time of meiosis and zygote formation which can give rise to 'variation' and not entirely new species.

4.Now we come to the infamous 'a monkey turned into a man some day' is not what i am saying,it is what the traditional evolutionist insinuate and you shouldn't have a problem in openly accepting it.Since there is absolutely no fossils or living transitional species showing half formed organs or any sort of 'intermediates' hence modern evolutionist have concocted the 'beneficial mutation accumulate in duplicate genes' and spontaneously manifest themselves after enough 'beneficial mutations accumulate' .This new theory of spontaneous evolution has been denied by you so no point in discussing it's merits and demerits.Again i would like to bring to your notice theres is no objective proof of 'transitional species or organism' and it is only a assumption.

5.About the divergence of man from monkey (mind you i am assuming evolution is true in the first place) refer to the link i posted on the same and you will be able to see the genetic studies that have actually time and again destroyed that notion,and how geneticist who reached the conclusion had to remodify their basic mutation rate assumptions just to fit in the traditional evolutionist time line(poor people are being funded by senseless evolutionists and pseudoscientists so they have to murder their own experimental observations just to confer with the direction of money).But i can understand if the information in the link is too difficult for you to understand or you have not read it.

6.( I am going to love discusiing this point)Now when you talk of abiogensis and peptide chain formation,this is the first time you have broached on anything to do with 'molecular biology',my hearty congratulations.
I will start with the basic first "proteins and amino acids can form organically" (i.e organically=living systems) is beyond contestation,but what you probably meant "proteins and amino acid can form naturally and spontaneously" is what you meant.
If you suggest that (which is if you consider yourself a evolutionist) that you do not confer with 'abiogenesis' then you are defacto a creationist or something else.Since if a evolutionist can't explain where the first life came from (and at the same time make lame attempts of stating lame experiments to try to prove abiogenesis) then what do they ascribe to?How did life come into existance?
Now when you talk about amino acids and proteins can form under natural environments,that is possible no doubt but what are the chances of a self replicating simple life to evolve in completely natural and spontaneous circumstances.You are refering to the famous Urey and Miller experiment,now tell me what is the chance of a single 20 polypeptide protein chain to form coherently (i am assuming you know that if even one amino acid position or type is changed potentially the entire protein becomes useless),i will tell you it goes in one in millions of trillions.Complex protein in its 3d conformation is a whole differnt ball game.This is the reason i have been constantly asking you the probability of 'random beneficial mutations).Most evolutionist realised this and gave up relying purely on chance and ultimately concoted the theory of 'uncatalysed replicating systems'.
Now fact still remains that there is no objective proof that can be reproduced even in the lab with technicians monitoring the process where simple life is created.Another faith based assumption called upon by evolutionist and stated as fact.
I dont quite understand what you mean by molecular proof (lol XD).

7.Now we come to your allegation of me rufusing to learn.I feel you only learn what you have read in outdated text books.I will not ascribe to faith based nonsense as science,if you are reffering to that as learning.

8.Now we come to the discussion of 'Saltation' and 'Punctuated' equilibrium'.In your comments regarding the same do you realise that the entire concept of evolution and not only these theories is only based on plausibility/possibility and no objective proof.I don't like talking about majority views when i talk about science but i prefer to rely on objective proof.There is no denying that mutations in duplicate genes happen but what are the chances of a 'series of beneficial mutations happening in duplicate genes' in the perfect order to give rise to a new species let alone a new beneficial physical character (it is very important to discuss the probability of the same to decide wether a event is plausible or not).The truth of the matter is that without relying on the theory of "beneficial mutations in duplicate genes",the theory of evolution is dismissed as a fairytale by modern genetics,epigenetics.
You say 'saltation' is false but then where are the intermediate species or organisms when one species gets converted to another(half formed organs etc).Is there any objective proof of these intermediate species?If you say 'saltation' is wrong then there is no proof to explain intermediate stages of 'speciation' and if you agree with 'saltation' then you shouldn't have a problem when someone say 'a monkey turned into the man'.

9.When i say mindless parrot i mean a person who has studied and gobbled up text books without thinking or updating their knowledge and just keep repeating what they have learnt and expect people to believe it.'Mindless parrots' have nothing to do with science and scientific research and reasoning based on objective scientific proof,they are just slaves of a doctrine they have byhearted.It is sad that you are so oblivious to your native intelligence and other feilds of science.If you don't like facts written in the links i have posted please go and refer to 'the cell' and other widely accepted textbooks (of which you are certainly a fan of and cross verify all the information).I have studied these subjects that are talked about in these links and the premise they have used for their arguments against evolution is hard scientic observations.Mind you i read the material in this link at the same time i posted them and all the points i put forward before are of my own accord.

10.I am not claiming that i am 100% correct about anything because i harbor a scientific spirit,even the people who discoverd the 'higgs boson' recently didn't say they are 100% correct (they gave their result as 99.999% or 6 sigma level of accuracy).So please if you truely have any scientific spirit learn to think in terms of probabilites when you are dealing with theories (without objective proof) and not absolutes.If you don't allow dissent to any idea when you are thinking critically then you are no better then relegious nut jobs who ask for only reliance on faith.
When you talk of evidence i already told you that the onus lies on the person who proposes or believes a particular doctrine,but i have given you ample evidence to point out the holes in your great doctrine.I have not suggested any alternative as Sesh correctly pointed out.
When you talk about allelic gene flow as a agent of variation,you very well know the experiments which have proved their limits,no where a new species has been created.Mutations,beneficial or bad are almost naturally supressed and wiped off.

11.When you list your achievements am i supposed to bow down and worship everything you say?Probably all the things you mentioned about your career, after this debate it seems that you trolled through out your life as a biologist since you have problems stating and understanding simple biological terms.Did you participate in evolutionary epigenetics by sleeping of in the last row?Now i don't mean to be too rude but i did give you in my last post that you probably have studied particular case studies probably under heavy guidance from evolutionist zealots (no different from relegious zealots).Here in your last point you have finally waved the white flag by doing what most outdated scientists do i.e. wave their degrees and achievements.You can be proud about your achievements but know that a man of science should have enough humility to acknowledge that no matter how much he has studied or learnt,he still is only a student.
And most of the things you mentioned as a part of you experiences are probably based on observable facts with objective proof (i.e ecology etc) so you should stick to what you actually know and not theorize.


P.S- Believe in true science and not fairy tales based on assumptions paraded as science.Evolution is not science,it is at best a fanciful theory,there is no objective proof that it is true.Evolution cannot be stated as hard fact as of now or in all probabilities ever.


#122    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 15 September 2012 - 08:26 AM

View PostThe_Spartan, on 15 September 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:

That is a complete contradiction to everything that you have debated here. So, you mean to say that the Evolutionary Biology that Arbitran has studied is all humbug? Know the science, Lear the Science, before you can debate on it. When it doesn't suit your belief or agenda, you call it humbug. When you yourself cant verify or substantiate your pet theories, you call the accepted sciences as hogwash. Way to go, Kid!! But you are going the wrong way, only! through out your posts the only links you have given, pertaining to evolution/devolution are links to your guru cremo, or silly creationist sites. have you ever lined to any peer reviewed papers/journals? No. you wouldn't because, if you linked to them , all your silly notions will fly in the wind. What Arbitran called you was right - you are indeed a troll with an agenda!!
This is exactly what i am talking about,evolution is science and science is evolution for people like you.Though i won't  hold it against you since i don't think you have a clue about what i am talking about.Every argument i have given is based on scientific fact and not assumptions like i stated before.
Also if you want to know if i have a guru or any agenda you can ask me directly and i am honest enough to tell you so,don't be prejudiced in your outlook.Should i feel that you defend Arbitran since he is your guru and relative or probably something else?Like i reitterated before science is not about acceptance or consensus unlike history,it is about objective,unprejudiced proof and reproducible proof.If you want peer reviewed proof of any of the premises or scientific facts that i have used in the debate,you can get them anywhere on the net or in textbooks so please do so,prove any of the facts of the science of biology that i have stated to be wrong.

P.S.-what agenda do you have in posting the above comment,are you adding value to the discussion in any way?


#123    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:12 AM

View PostThe_Spartan, on 15 September 2012 - 05:03 AM, said:

Ok. Harsh..enough of the Harsh dealings.

Let me ask you one thing -what are your educational qualifications?

for example - I am an Electrical Engineer. I have a B.E in Electrical & Electronics Engineering.
Indian Culture, Civilizations, Mythology etc are my hobbies but what i know best is Electrical Engineering.
If someone comes to discuss /debate or argue about Electrical Engineering, i know my footing, i can argue till eternity because i know my subject.
But when it comes to  discussion of Indian Mythology or civilization, since its my hobby only, i may be wrong sometimes and when i am wrong i will correct myself.

Like me, Arbitran is a Professional in his field. He learned Biology and is a Biologist - having spent long years studying, working in the field.

Do you  think a layman like or me can argue successfully with a person who knows his science??
When you came on UM, i thought that you were another layman like me who would love to discuss with an analytical mind, but i realised later that you have hidden agendas.

You are a Hindu Nationalist. You are a creationist.

Period!

Never argue with a Person who knows his sciences!!
I am a biotechnologist,and i have already told you that in my course of studying biology i found glaring holes in the theory of evolution.I converted from a believer to a skeptic of this theory,with all the subsequent ramifications of the same.Unlike creationist my beliefs against evolution didn't come into existence because of any relegion but subsequently i have looked into all types of relegions as a matter of interest.Since my relatively recent education in biotechnology (which involves a study of probably all feilds of biology and their integration with technology) hence i have a working knowledge of quite a few feilds in the spectrum of biological studies.
http://www.unexplain...7
This is a link which will probably give you a little idea of what my thoughts on God and relegions are (it is a satire).
I cannot demonstrate creation or a creator hence i cannot yet bring myself to believe that there is one.
I prefer to question any information before accepting it,no matter who said it.
Even if i was a creationist or hindu nationalist why should i hide it?
My agenda when i post on UM is only to explore a few ideas that i have and probably pick up some amounts of knowledge.

Since you are a engineer let me ask you that if someone tells you to believe that random natural processes can give rise to a supercomputer (which is still a understatement when compared to human beings)over billions of years without giving you any 'objective proof' of the same other then showing you a washing machine,hair drier,toaster,television,486 computer and telling you that one morphed into another of it's own accord and ultimately gave you a supercomputer.If you belive it is possible with human help then tell me what are the chances of it happening on its own and randomly?.
This is just a crude anology.
I am quite certain that in this particular debate i definitely know what i am talking about,unlike many other topics where i still have relatively little knowledge about.I try to keep an open mind  and a hollistic approach to everything i take interest in.
I dislike the characteristic in people who think they know everything about anything.

P.S.-i love to discuss/debate things with people who have an analytical mind since that provides a wonderful opurtunity for me improve my thought process and concepts.


#124    Arbitran

Arbitran

    Post-Singularitan Hyperturing Synthetic Intelligence

  • Member
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:50 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

First let me state that there are some merits in the modern theory of evolution which is thought provoking and slightly digestable,i never rejected the theory completely until you started stating it as a scientific fact,which is the biggest insult to a person who really admires the objectivity of science.

1.Yes i agree we have not been discussing much of cell biology,systems biology etc as you have been constantly trying to avoid the same.I brought it up on numerous occasions but you fail to reply even once,trying to only talk about falsified pro macroevolution case studies which rely on wild assumptions (so and so species evolved from this simpler species without any intermediates with half formed organs).Because of your constant ignorance of the same i assumed you don't have a clue of what i am talking about.


Calling a fact a fact is an insult to the objectivity of science? I can it a triumph of science, that it has managed to give us a model of biology which is the most conclusively proven theory in the history of mankind (by sheer quantity of evidence).

Since when does the fact that they never came up suggest that I've been "constantly trying to avoid" them? I don't recall any questions you've asked me which I haven't answered; I could be wrong, but please cite them specifically if you feel I've missed something. And "macro-evolution" (not a real scientific term, firstly), relies on very few, if any, assumptions. Science in general, tends not to rely on assumption.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

2.My friend 'Abiogenesis' (i.e life assembled itself from non-living things on itself randomly) mind you for which there is no proof or reproducability still and 'random beneficial mutations' (which is as good as believing that a short circuit in your computer is going to make it better) are the first two pillars of theory of evolution,'Natural selection' comes into play only after a beneficial mutation has manifested itself which can only happen after life has first evolved.In either scenario 'random beneficial mutation' is the main and only agent to drive evolution by bringing into existence Mutants after which natural selection can take place,so if you are an evolutionist of any salt you cannot refute or understate the importance of 'random beneficial mutations' to the theory of evolution.Probably you feel 'natural selection' and as you say 'heredity' is more important since you have probably focused your 'studies' on these.

You used the same words over and over there without saying much with any coherence... To counter your (rather laboured) "short circuit" analogy, you speak of mutation as if it implies that it will be a harmful occurrence (as the "short circuit in a computer" metaphor suggests). To use a computer, again, as an analogy, think of this sort of beneficial mutation more like some sort of code (I'm not very good with computers... so this might not make much sense... but bear with me) which allows the computer to process (or any given thing) slightly better than other computers. Now, there is no really effective analogy for natural selection in computers at the moment; although artificial selection, yes (computer models which operate more effectively are selected and extrapolated upon, while less efficient ones are more likely to become obsolete).

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

3.http://www.biology-o...ionary/Heredity.I will not bother explaining to you the meaning or heredity again or how it cannot give rise to new species a)because it is concerned with transfer of genetic material from parents to offsprings b)it requires organism of the same species to reproduce and cause the transfer in the first place.I will also help you by telling you that what you actually mean is genetic recombination at the time of meiosis and zygote formation which can give rise to 'variation' and not entirely new species.

Yes, I do mean heredity when I say heredity. I know very well what it means. But that does not make it any different than what I've said already. Do you honestly think that you have a species reproducing over and over, and then, one day, there's one which is born which is labeled: "new species"? It doesn't work like that. Fortunately, evolution doesn't correspond to the pathetic counterfeit which creationists like to peddle to those who haven't actually studied the actual science. Life is a continuum of organisms, and things like "species", "genera", etc., are simply names we give groups of interbreeding organisms to help classify them and study them more efficiently. Speciation is a prolonged process, with breeding between increasingly-disparate lineages becoming gradually less and less likely to yield viable offspring, until viability in breeding is lost entirely, and the groups are labeled as different species. If one were to look at the big picture, every organism on this planet is descended from the same line, no matter the species, no matter the genus, no matter the appearance, no matter the shape, no matter the colour. But interbreeding is a tricky thing, and only organisms which are of sufficiently compatible genomic material are capable of successfully yielding offspring. For example, the tiger and the lion are two distinct species, however they are capable of interbreeding, and at times producing a hybrid creature (called either a liger or a tigon, depending on the genders of the respective parents). Both the lion and the tiger are members of the genus Panthera: the lion is Panthera leo, the tiger is Panthera tigris. They are two distinct species, yet are capable of breeding; this is because, while they are indeed disparate, their point of divergence from their common ancestor (which was also the common ancestor of leopards, etc.) was recent enough that their genomes are still of a degree of compatibility which can produce offspring. The horse and the donkey do the same in the their production of the mule, or the donkey and the zebra, in their production of the zonkey. Species which are closely related enough are still capable of interbreeding, but at some point down the line, the lineages will inevitably become to distant for these sorts of hybrids to arise (you can't mate a shark with a slug, for example; their last common ancestor lived hundreds of millions of years ago).

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

4.Now we come to the infamous 'a monkey turned into a man some day' is not what i am saying,it is what the traditional evolutionist insinuate and you shouldn't have a problem in openly accepting it.Since there is absolutely no fossils or living transitional species showing half formed organs or any sort of 'intermediates' hence modern evolutionist have concocted the 'beneficial mutation accumulate in duplicate genes' and spontaneously manifest themselves after enough 'beneficial mutations accumulate' .This new theory of spontaneous evolution has been denied by you so no point in discussing it's merits and demerits.Again i would like to bring to your notice theres is no objective proof of 'transitional species or organism' and it is only a assumption.

You see, your claims of what evolutionary scientists "insinuate" couldn't mean much less to me. That you utterly misunderstand the science isn't their fault in the slightest. And I know for a fact that evolutionary biology has never insinuated what you suggest it does. Your idiotic notions of "half-formed organs" is frankly the most asinine thing I think I've ever heard. I explained to you the development of the human eye, and you never once made any reference to the need for there to be "in-betweens", as it were. Why would you think it would be different for anything else? There is in fact overwhelming evidence for transitional forms in fossil, as well as a few extant taxa; that you ignore them is your own problem, not mine, given I've already given you a list of them.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

5.About the divergence of man from monkey (mind you i am assuming evolution is true in the first place) refer to the link i posted on the same and you will be able to see the genetic studies that have actually time and again destroyed that notion,and how geneticist who reached the conclusion had to remodify their basic mutation rate assumptions just to fit in the traditional evolutionist time line(poor people are being funded by senseless evolutionists and pseudoscientists so they have to murder their own experimental observations just to confer with the direction of money).But i can understand if the information in the link is too difficult for you to understand or you have not read it.

Your link was bull****, but yes, I did bother to read it. Your little conspiracy theory doesn't hold any water, I'm afraid. To be quite honest, I would love if it were all evolutionary biologists funding research! I'd get loads more done... Funding is difficult to come by, sorry to say, and that applies just as well (sometimes even more so...) to we "evolutionists" (also not a scientific term). And no, modern genetic studies have not discredited evolution, I'm glad to say; on the contrary, they have helped to confirm it beyond any shadow of a (scientific) doubt.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

6.( I am going to love discusiing this point)Now when you talk of abiogensis and peptide chain formation,this is the first time you have broached on anything to do with 'molecular biology',my hearty congratulations.
I will start with the basic first "proteins and amino acids can form organically" (i.e organically=living systems) is beyond contestation,but what you probably meant "proteins and amino acid can form naturally and spontaneously" is what you meant.
If you suggest that (which is if you consider yourself a evolutionist) that you do not confer with 'abiogenesis' then you are defacto a creationist or something else.Since if a evolutionist can't explain where the first life came from (and at the same time make lame attempts of stating lame experiments to try to prove abiogenesis) then what do they ascribe to?How did life come into existance?

Perhaps we take a look at my dictionary's definitions of "organically"?

organic |ôrˈganik| adj.
  • Chemistry | of, relating to, or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts)
  • denoting a relation between elements of something such that they fit together harmoniously as necessary parts of a whole: the organic unity of the integral work of art. | characterized by continuous or natural development

I said that evolutionary biology doesn't comment on life's origin, because it doesn't. That doesn't mean that other branches of biology, ones which I have experience in, don't.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

Now when you talk about amino acids and proteins can form under natural environments,that is possible no doubt but what are the chances of a self replicating simple life to evolve in completely natural and spontaneous circumstances.You are refering to the famous Urey and Miller experiment,now tell me what is the chance of a single 20 polypeptide protein chain to form coherently (i am assuming you know that if even one amino acid position or type is changed potentially the entire protein becomes useless),i will tell you it goes in one in millions of trillions.

Do you happen to know the odds of all of the photons of light needed to illuminate the Earth traveling all the way from the sun and coming over the horizon every morning is? Roughly in the millions of trillions...

Honestly, probabilities really don't help your case when you're trying to talk about things that are real and in an open system. If we were all in a closed system and simply hypothetical ideas, then perhaps you'd have a point, but the universe seldom corresponds to what we'd expect it to do, simply based on probability (part of why science actually bothers studying and experimenting, rather than just crunching numbers all day). And sure, maybe I was referring to the Urey-Miller experiment... maybe I wasn't. Given there are more than twenty other major experiments which have demonstrated and elaborated on the same principles, I can only presume that your knowledge of abiogenesis research only extends into the 1950s...

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

Complex protein in its 3d conformation is a whole differnt ball game.This is the reason i have been constantly asking you the probability of 'random beneficial mutations).Most evolutionist realised this and gave up relying purely on chance and ultimately concoted the theory of 'uncatalysed replicating systems'.
Now fact still remains that there is no objective proof that can be reproduced even in the lab with technicians monitoring the process where simple life is created.Another faith based assumption called upon by evolutionist and stated as fact.
I dont quite understand what you mean by molecular proof (lol XD).

Sure, we haven't created life in the lab yet... give us a break... I mean, we've been working on it for a little more than fifty years. Our planet had billions to work with. Care to crunch the numbers on that? (Rhetorical; I frankly couldn't care less, as I've said, about the "probability"; it has very little real-world application here.)

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

7.Now we come to your allegation of me rufusing to learn.I feel you only learn what you have read in outdated text books.I will not ascribe to faith based nonsense as science,if you are reffering to that as learning.

I honestly haven't read through a biology textbook in years, I can admit that. Fortunately I don't have to. I have other means of gleaning information about biology: scientific papers, studies, observations, experimentation, or, as a last resort, the internet. And I do applaud your acceptance of science and rejection of faith-based nonsense. In that case though, you should have no quarrel whatsoever with me, given that evolutionary biology, again, is the single most-overwhelmingly-supported scientific fact which mankind has ever conceived of. You'd have a more tenable case trying to argue against Einstein than Darwin.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

8.Now we come to the discussion of 'Saltation' and 'Punctuated' equilibrium'.In your comments regarding the same do you realise that the entire concept of evolution and not only these theories is only based on plausibility/possibility and no objective proof.I don't like talking about majority views when i talk about science but i prefer to rely on objective proof.There is no denying that mutations in duplicate genes happen but what are the chances of a 'series of beneficial mutations happening in duplicate genes' in the perfect order to give rise to a new species let alone a new beneficial physical character (it is very important to discuss the probability of the same to decide wether a event is plausible or not).The truth of the matter is that without relying on the theory of "beneficial mutations in duplicate genes",the theory of evolution is dismissed as a fairytale by modern genetics,epigenetics.

When you say "do you realise that the entire concept of evolution and not only these theories is only based on plausibility/possibility and no objective proof", you almost seem to say it as though by "do you realise", you're suggesting that there is something factual about your statement, that I should accept... Only too bad... I happen to know better than that. It doesn't matter how many times you say "evolution has no objective proof"; that doesn't make that statement any less vacuous and false than the previous time you said it. I've provided you with proofs; again, your ignorance of them has no bearings whatsoever on their veracity. The theory of evolution certainly isn't "dismissed as a fairy tale by modern genetics,epigenetics". What an utter crock. You'd have been more accurate if you said something along the lines of: "geology is dismissed as a fairy tale by modern rocks"...

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

You say 'saltation' is false but then where are the intermediate species or organisms when one species gets converted to another(half formed organs etc).Is there any objective proof of these intermediate species?If you say 'saltation' is wrong then there is no proof to explain intermediate stages of 'speciation' and if you agree with 'saltation' then you shouldn't have a problem when someone say 'a monkey turned into the man'.

I didn't say that saltation was false, I said that it was unlikely, and that I don't personally subscribe to the idea; nor do the majority of biologists. Again, your silly notions of "half-formed organs" and species being "converted" into different ones is just laughable (and do not say in your next post that I'm contradicting myself, I'm not; you're simply returning to the same things I've refuted and explained over and over again). Even if I agreed with saltation, I still probably wouldn't say that a "monkey turned into a man", because that sort of change would be incredibly massive; far beyond even the most extreme claims of saltation by proponents. Perhaps I should have been more clear earlier, when discussing the chimpanzee-human divergence. It isn't as if a chimpanzee turned into a hominin; until that point, the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees were the same species. It was after the speciation that the direct ancestors of humans and modern chimpanzees arose, and then went on the yield the respective species (us, and chimps).

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

9.When i say mindless parrot i mean a person who has studied and gobbled up text books without thinking or updating their knowledge and just keep repeating what they have learnt and expect people to believe it.'Mindless parrots' have nothing to do with science and scientific research and reasoning based on objective scientific proof,they are just slaves of a doctrine they have byhearted.It is sad that you are so oblivious to your native intelligence and other feilds of science.If you don't like facts written in the links i have posted please go and refer to 'the cell' and other widely accepted textbooks (of which you are certainly a fan of and cross verify all the information).I have studied these subjects that are talked about in these links and the premise they have used for their arguments against evolution is hard scientic observations.Mind you i read the material in this link at the same time i posted them and all the points i put forward before are of my own accord.

I'll admit that my comprehension of knowledge in other fields is a bit shakier than in my specialty, biology, however we do happen to be talking about evolution; ergo, my field. Again, I haven't read a science textbook in any sort of entirety for years, though I am quite aware of the fact that the textbooks I read at university on the subject were mistaken or imprecise on some points (a few of which I have personally aided in clarifying). The links you provided do not give anything of the sort of a genuine scientific case against evolution (or else perhaps they might have bothered to actually understand evolution first); they're just the same old pathetic cases that have been made, and debunked, countless times. And honestly, if you're really so confident that evolution is wrong, and you're onto something, then you shouldn't be afraid to publish an actual scientific paper and have your "case" studied by peer review; rather than just hiding behind the pathetic fringe sites peddling their pseudoscientific garbage. I'm 100% serious: if you're so convinced that you can disprove evolutionary biology, then by all means, step forward and claim your Nobel prize. If not, then kindly sod off about it, and admit you have no case at all.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

10.I am not claiming that i am 100% correct about anything because i harbor a scientific spirit,even the people who discoverd the 'higgs boson' recently didn't say they are 100% correct (they gave their result as 99.999% or 6 sigma level of accuracy).So please if you truely have any scientific spirit learn to think in terms of probabilites when you are dealing with theories (without objective proof) and not absolutes.If you don't allow dissent to any idea when you are thinking critically then you are no better then relegious nut jobs who ask for only reliance on faith.
When you talk of evidence i already told you that the onus lies on the person who proposes or believes a particular doctrine,but i have given you ample evidence to point out the holes in your great doctrine.I have not suggested any alternative as Sesh correctly pointed out.
When you talk about allelic gene flow as a agent of variation,you very well know the experiments which have proved their limits,no where a new species has been created.Mutations,beneficial or bad are almost naturally supressed and wiped off.

Of course I am open to evolution being challenged; when did I ever say otherwise? That you feel that your particular "challenge" presents even the most meager of threats to the fortitude of evolutionary biology is almost tragic. Of course I don't ask for reliance on faith, given I've provided solid links substantiating most of the points I've made on the previous pages; and the evidence for evolution is available, thanks to the internet, to anyone and everyone who has a mind to have a look. That you evidently haven't doesn't concern me. And "ample evidence to point out the holes"? Excuse me whilst I laugh my ass off once more... You haven't given one single shred of anything even remotely resembling evidence, let alone evidence which would "poke holes" in the most robust scientific theory of all time. You say that I "very well know" the experiments which "prove" limits in allelic gene flow; I don't. Just saying "you very well know" doesn't cut it. Please link to a single experiment which has demonstrated this (I'll be very keen on seeing it). Also, provide substantiation for your bald assertion that "mutations, beneficial or bad, are almost naturally suppressed or wiped off". Because without evidence your empty assertions are just a waste of space on a computer screen.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

11.When you list your achievements am i supposed to bow down and worship everything you say?Probably all the things you mentioned about your career, after this debate it seems that you trolled through out your life as a biologist since you have problems stating and understanding simple biological terms.Did you participate in evolutionary epigenetics by sleeping of in the last row?Now i don't mean to be too rude but i did give you in my last post that you probably have studied particular case studies probably under heavy guidance from evolutionist zealots (no different from relegious zealots).Here in your last point you have finally waved the white flag by doing what most outdated scientists do i.e. wave their degrees and achievements.You can be proud about your achievements but know that a man of science should have enough humility to acknowledge that no matter how much he has studied or learnt,he still is only a student.
And most of the things you mentioned as a part of you experiences are probably based on observable facts with objective proof (i.e ecology etc) so you should stick to what you actually know and not theorize.

No, listing my particular accomplishments was by no means intended to make you "worship" me. It's interesting that you claim that I have difficulty "stating and understanding simple biological terms". Name one please? I dare you. Intriguing that you refer to ecology, specifically, as being based on "objective proof", whilst claiming simultaneously that evolutionary biology isn't. You do realize that a great deal of all work in ecology, in all biology in general, is known through the framework of evolutionary science, right? Evolution is to biology what the periodic table is to chemistry, or that rocks are to geology. It only makes sense under the framework of the scientific model. And all I was trying to do with mentioning my activities was to note that I have dedicated my life to this field; your knowledge of biology, on the other hand, is of such a quality that I can only presume it was acquired over a weekend of skimming fringe creationist websites. In other words, no "waving" of my activities was intended; only a reminder of just who you're dealing with (since you seem to regularly forget, and insist that I "don't understand science"...).

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

P.S- Believe in true science and not fairy tales based on assumptions paraded as science.Evolution is not science,it is at best a fanciful theory,there is no objective proof that it is true.Evolution cannot be stated as hard fact as of now or in all probabilities ever.

Again, I applaud your denial of fairy tale in place of science. But evolution is indeed science, is indeed a theory, and there is indeed objective proof of its veracity, which has been demonstrated time and again. Evolution can, and ought, be stated as hard fact, given that it is a scientific fact. I'm sorry that this truth doesn't seem to properly correspond to your little world of "evolutionist" conspiracies and pseudoscience, but that really doesn't concern me. You're free to believe whatever you want, but don't you dare try and tell me that it's true unless you can back it up (which, again, you haven't).

Try to realize it's all within yourself / No-one else can make you change / And to see you're really only very small / And life flows on within you and without you. / We were talking about the love that's gone so cold and the people / Who gain the world and lose their soul / They don't know they can't see are you one of them? / When you've seen beyond yourself then you may find peace of mind / Is waiting there / And the time will come / when you see we're all one and life flows on within you and without you. ~ George Harrison

#125    Arbitran

Arbitran

    Post-Singularitan Hyperturing Synthetic Intelligence

  • Member
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 September 2012 - 10:04 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

I am a biotechnologist,and i have already told you that in my course of studying biology i found glaring holes in the theory of evolution.I converted from a believer to a skeptic of this theory,with all the subsequent ramifications of the same.Unlike creationist my beliefs against evolution didn't come into existence because of any relegion but subsequently i have looked into all types of relegions as a matter of interest.Since my relatively recent education in biotechnology (which involves a study of probably all feilds of biology and their integration with technology) hence i have a working knowledge of quite a few feilds in the spectrum of biological studies.
http://www.unexplain...7
This is a link which will probably give you a little idea of what my thoughts on God and relegions are (it is a satire).
I cannot demonstrate creation or a creator hence i cannot yet bring myself to believe that there is one.
I prefer to question any information before accepting it,no matter who said it.
Even if i was a creationist or hindu nationalist why should i hide it?
My agenda when i post on UM is only to explore a few ideas that i have and probably pick up some amounts of knowledge.

Since you are a engineer let me ask you that if someone tells you to believe that random natural processes can give rise to a supercomputer (which is still a understatement when compared to human beings)over billions of years without giving you any 'objective proof' of the same other then showing you a washing machine,hair drier,toaster,television,486 computer and telling you that one morphed into another of it's own accord and ultimately gave you a supercomputer.If you belive it is possible with human help then tell me what are the chances of it happening on its own and randomly?.
This is just a crude anology.
I am quite certain that in this particular debate i definitely know what i am talking about,unlike many other topics where i still have relatively little knowledge about.I try to keep an open mind  and a hollistic approach to everything i take interest in.
I dislike the characteristic in people who think they know everything about anything.

P.S.-i love to discuss/debate things with people who have an analytical mind since that provides a wonderful opurtunity for me improve my thought process and concepts.

You have just radically altered my perception of biotechnologists... If you can claim to have the prefix "bio-" in your occupational title, then I should have expected an actually knowledge of biology (again, I'll grant you that your understanding of molecular and cellular terminology is impressive, but your knowledge of evolutionary biology is staggeringly poor). Every single thing you've stated about evolution has so far been pathetic creationist rehash; I should have thought that an alleged biotechnologist would, if he were genuinely attempting to "poke holes" in evolutionary theory, oh, I don't know... come up with his own "proofs"? Because honestly, all you've done so far is rewrap old creationist arguments which have been debunked long ago; well, that, and parade your own glaring lack of education in evolutionary biology. I can only presume that you are likely not an authentic biotechnologist, and are likely simply pretending to be one in order to give some attempt at elevating your status to one which might be more credible in this debate. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but given your displayed, deplorably exiguous comprehension of even the most remedial of topics with pertinence to evolutionary biology (or most biology in general), I remain highly skeptical of your claim. I should think that a genuine biotechnologist would be well-versed enough in biology to know how comically-stupid the "monkey transformed into a human" argument is; but then, maybe you could have made it through sheer luck? Or deceit perhaps? In any case, I reiterate: the idea that a claimed "biotechnologist" could have such an appalling lack of comprehension of evolutionary biology is very, very hard to believe...

Try to realize it's all within yourself / No-one else can make you change / And to see you're really only very small / And life flows on within you and without you. / We were talking about the love that's gone so cold and the people / Who gain the world and lose their soul / They don't know they can't see are you one of them? / When you've seen beyond yourself then you may find peace of mind / Is waiting there / And the time will come / when you see we're all one and life flows on within you and without you. ~ George Harrison

#126    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 15 September 2012 - 11:07 AM

View PostArbitran, on 15 September 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

Calling a fact a fact is an insult to the objectivity of science? I can it a triumph of science, that it has managed to give us a model of biology which is the most conclusively proven theory in the history of mankind (by sheer quantity of evidence).

Since when does the fact that they never came up suggest that I've been "constantly trying to avoid" them? I don't recall any questions you've asked me which I haven't answered; I could be wrong, but please cite them specifically if you feel I've missed something. And "macro-evolution" (not a real scientific term, firstly), relies on very few, if any, assumptions. Science in general, tends not to rely on assumption.



You used the same words over and over there without saying much with any coherence... To counter your (rather laboured) "short circuit" analogy, you speak of mutation as if it implies that it will be a harmful occurrence (as the "short circuit in a computer" metaphor suggests). To use a computer, again, as an analogy, think of this sort of beneficial mutation more like some sort of code (I'm not very good with computers... so this might not make much sense... but bear with me) which allows the computer to process (or any given thing) slightly better than other computers. Now, there is no really effective analogy for natural selection in computers at the moment; although artificial selection, yes (computer models which operate more effectively are selected and extrapolated upon, while less efficient ones are more likely to become obsolete).



Yes, I do mean heredity when I say heredity. I know very well what it means. But that does not make it any different than what I've said already. Do you honestly think that you have a species reproducing over and over, and then, one day, there's one which is born which is labeled: "new species"? It doesn't work like that. Fortunately, evolution doesn't correspond to the pathetic counterfeit which creationists like to peddle to those who haven't actually studied the actual science. Life is a continuum of organisms, and things like "species", "genera", etc., are simply names we give groups of interbreeding organisms to help classify them and study them more efficiently. Speciation is a prolonged process, with breeding between increasingly-disparate lineages becoming gradually less and less likely to yield viable offspring, until viability in breeding is lost entirely, and the groups are labeled as different species. If one were to look at the big picture, every organism on this planet is descended from the same line, no matter the species, no matter the genus, no matter the appearance, no matter the shape, no matter the colour. But interbreeding is a tricky thing, and only organisms which are of sufficiently compatible genomic material are capable of successfully yielding offspring. For example, the tiger and the lion are two distinct species, however they are capable of interbreeding, and at times producing a hybrid creature (called either a liger or a tigon, depending on the genders of the respective parents). Both the lion and the tiger are members of the genus Panthera: the lion is Panthera leo, the tiger is Panthera tigris. They are two distinct species, yet are capable of breeding; this is because, while they are indeed disparate, their point of divergence from their common ancestor (which was also the common ancestor of leopards, etc.) was recent enough that their genomes are still of a degree of compatibility which can produce offspring. The horse and the donkey do the same in the their production of the mule, or the donkey and the zebra, in their production of the zonkey. Species which are closely related enough are still capable of interbreeding, but at some point down the line, the lineages will inevitably become to distant for these sorts of hybrids to arise (you can't mate a shark with a slug, for example; their last common ancestor lived hundreds of millions of years ago).



You see, your claims of what evolutionary scientists "insinuate" couldn't mean much less to me. That you utterly misunderstand the science isn't their fault in the slightest. And I know for a fact that evolutionary biology has never insinuated what you suggest it does. Your idiotic notions of "half-formed organs" is frankly the most asinine thing I think I've ever heard. I explained to you the development of the human eye, and you never once made any reference to the need for there to be "in-betweens", as it were. Why would you think it would be different for anything else? There is in fact overwhelming evidence for transitional forms in fossil, as well as a few extant taxa; that you ignore them is your own problem, not mine, given I've already given you a list of them.



Your link was bull****, but yes, I did bother to read it. Your little conspiracy theory doesn't hold any water, I'm afraid. To be quite honest, I would love if it were all evolutionary biologists funding research! I'd get loads more done... Funding is difficult to come by, sorry to say, and that applies just as well (sometimes even more so...) to we "evolutionists" (also not a scientific term). And no, modern genetic studies have not discredited evolution, I'm glad to say; on the contrary, they have helped to confirm it beyond any shadow of a (scientific) doubt.



Perhaps we take a look at my dictionary's definitions of "organically"?

organic |ôrˈganik| adj.
  • Chemistry | of, relating to, or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts)
  • denoting a relation between elements of something such that they fit together harmoniously as necessary parts of a whole: the organic unity of the integral work of art. | characterized by continuous or natural development

I said that evolutionary biology doesn't comment on life's origin, because it doesn't. That doesn't mean that other branches of biology, ones which I have experience in, don't.



Do you happen to know the odds of all of the photons of light needed to illuminate the Earth traveling all the way from the sun and coming over the horizon every morning is? Roughly in the millions of trillions...

Honestly, probabilities really don't help your case when you're trying to talk about things that are real and in an open system. If we were all in a closed system and simply hypothetical ideas, then perhaps you'd have a point, but the universe seldom corresponds to what we'd expect it to do, simply based on probability (part of why science actually bothers studying and experimenting, rather than just crunching numbers all day). And sure, maybe I was referring to the Urey-Miller experiment... maybe I wasn't. Given there are more than twenty other major experiments which have demonstrated and elaborated on the same principles, I can only presume that your knowledge of abiogenesis research only extends into the 1950s...



Sure, we haven't created life in the lab yet... give us a break... I mean, we've been working on it for a little more than fifty years. Our planet had billions to work with. Care to crunch the numbers on that? (Rhetorical; I frankly couldn't care less, as I've said, about the "probability"; it has very little real-world application here.)



I honestly haven't read through a biology textbook in years, I can admit that. Fortunately I don't have to. I have other means of gleaning information about biology: scientific papers, studies, observations, experimentation, or, as a last resort, the internet. And I do applaud your acceptance of science and rejection of faith-based nonsense. In that case though, you should have no quarrel whatsoever with me, given that evolutionary biology, again, is the single most-overwhelmingly-supported scientific fact which mankind has ever conceived of. You'd have a more tenable case trying to argue against Einstein than Darwin.



When you say "do you realise that the entire concept of evolution and not only these theories is only based on plausibility/possibility and no objective proof", you almost seem to say it as though by "do you realise", you're suggesting that there is something factual about your statement, that I should accept... Only too bad... I happen to know better than that. It doesn't matter how many times you say "evolution has no objective proof"; that doesn't make that statement any less vacuous and false than the previous time you said it. I've provided you with proofs; again, your ignorance of them has no bearings whatsoever on their veracity. The theory of evolution certainly isn't "dismissed as a fairy tale by modern genetics,epigenetics". What an utter crock. You'd have been more accurate if you said something along the lines of: "geology is dismissed as a fairy tale by modern rocks"...



I didn't say that saltation was false, I said that it was unlikely, and that I don't personally subscribe to the idea; nor do the majority of biologists. Again, your silly notions of "half-formed organs" and species being "converted" into different ones is just laughable (and do not say in your next post that I'm contradicting myself, I'm not; you're simply returning to the same things I've refuted and explained over and over again). Even if I agreed with saltation, I still probably wouldn't say that a "monkey turned into a man", because that sort of change would be incredibly massive; far beyond even the most extreme claims of saltation by proponents. Perhaps I should have been more clear earlier, when discussing the chimpanzee-human divergence. It isn't as if a chimpanzee turned into a hominin; until that point, the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees were the same species. It was after the speciation that the direct ancestors of humans and modern chimpanzees arose, and then went on the yield the respective species (us, and chimps).



I'll admit that my comprehension of knowledge in other fields is a bit shakier than in my specialty, biology, however we do happen to be talking about evolution; ergo, my field. Again, I haven't read a science textbook in any sort of entirety for years, though I am quite aware of the fact that the textbooks I read at university on the subject were mistaken or imprecise on some points (a few of which I have personally aided in clarifying). The links you provided do not give anything of the sort of a genuine scientific case against evolution (or else perhaps they might have bothered to actually understand evolution first); they're just the same old pathetic cases that have been made, and debunked, countless times. And honestly, if you're really so confident that evolution is wrong, and you're onto something, then you shouldn't be afraid to publish an actual scientific paper and have your "case" studied by peer review; rather than just hiding behind the pathetic fringe sites peddling their pseudoscientific garbage. I'm 100% serious: if you're so convinced that you can disprove evolutionary biology, then by all means, step forward and claim your Nobel prize. If not, then kindly sod off about it, and admit you have no case at all.



Of course I am open to evolution being challenged; when did I ever say otherwise? That you feel that your particular "challenge" presents even the most meager of threats to the fortitude of evolutionary biology is almost tragic. Of course I don't ask for reliance on faith, given I've provided solid links substantiating most of the points I've made on the previous pages; and the evidence for evolution is available, thanks to the internet, to anyone and everyone who has a mind to have a look. That you evidently haven't doesn't concern me. And "ample evidence to point out the holes"? Excuse me whilst I laugh my ass off once more... You haven't given one single shred of anything even remotely resembling evidence, let alone evidence which would "poke holes" in the most robust scientific theory of all time. You say that I "very well know" the experiments which "prove" limits in allelic gene flow; I don't. Just saying "you very well know" doesn't cut it. Please link to a single experiment which has demonstrated this (I'll be very keen on seeing it). Also, provide substantiation for your bald assertion that "mutations, beneficial or bad, are almost naturally suppressed or wiped off". Because without evidence your empty assertions are just a waste of space on a computer screen.



No, listing my particular accomplishments was by no means intended to make you "worship" me. It's interesting that you claim that I have difficulty "stating and understanding simple biological terms". Name one please? I dare you. Intriguing that you refer to ecology, specifically, as being based on "objective proof", whilst claiming simultaneously that evolutionary biology isn't. You do realize that a great deal of all work in ecology, in all biology in general, is known through the framework of evolutionary science, right? Evolution is to biology what the periodic table is to chemistry, or that rocks are to geology. It only makes sense under the framework of the scientific model. And all I was trying to do with mentioning my activities was to note that I have dedicated my life to this field; your knowledge of biology, on the other hand, is of such a quality that I can only presume it was acquired over a weekend of skimming fringe creationist websites. In other words, no "waving" of my activities was intended; only a reminder of just who you're dealing with (since you seem to regularly forget, and insist that I "don't understand science"...).



Again, I applaud your denial of fairy tale in place of science. But evolution is indeed science, is indeed a theory, and there is indeed objective proof of its veracity, which has been demonstrated time and again. Evolution can, and ought, be stated as hard fact, given that it is a scientific fact. I'm sorry that this truth doesn't seem to properly correspond to your little world of "evolutionist" conspiracies and pseudoscience, but that really doesn't concern me. You're free to believe whatever you want, but don't you dare try and tell me that it's true unless you can back it up (which, again, you haven't).
I love biology and have studied it all my life and let me tell you that evolution has got nothing to do with biology,biology is the study of various organisms that are alive and not a commentary on how life evolved or speculations regarding the same.There is a lot of objectivity in the field of biology and the theory of evolution is just one measly theory and a sadly a currently accepted member of this family of biological science.Human anatomy,cell biology,molecular biology,bio informatics,pharmacology,medicine,zoology,botany,..........and countless other branches of biology are based on hard scientic facts and experiments which are reproducible in a lab or can be observed in nature....same was the case 50 years back and same is the case now (though detailing and new breakthroughs through experimentation,research,publication and reproducible experiments are still happening and adding to the wealth of knowledge........and peer review in these cases is only to check if the experiment is done under the circumstances mentioned in the paper submitted and the results are reproducible and conclsuions are in line with the result..........if a paper checks out on all these criteria then choice of accepting it or rejecting it is not in the hand of the reviewer.In the above mentioned conditions i can accept the veracity of scientific knowledge that these branches of biology preach.
Stating that evolution is biology(or even the crux of it) is like stating astro physics is the crux of physics.
Since i sense that this debate is not going anywhere and typing pages is not going to help i will just repeat a few questions which as you claim you have answered.
1.What mechanisms do you suggest for formation of entirely new genes or gene chains and systems?Verifiable objective experimental proof for the same.

2.How did life evolve?if it did evolve what are the chances of evolution of the proto multicellular organism.(photon from the sun reach the earth not because of chance but since they are on a direct trajectory for Earth.This process is a simple process and doesn't require higher organisation.The probability of an event of a photon from the sun on a direct trajectory towards earth to reach the Earth without any obstructions is '1'. Also i would like to add that the probability of you falling if you jump of a cliff naked without any other help is also '1'.What is the probability of a random beneficial mutations leading to a beneficial physical characteristic?)

3.If you are talking about a group of populations breeding over generations and then gradually give rise to a population that is a completely new species you have to agree that the demarcation has to happen at one particular generation which wont be able to reproduce with it's predeccesor and cannot happen over generations.How do you propose to explain the same without saying 'saltation' being absolutely right?

4.Have scores of scientist working in modern technological labs been able to produce even one new species by using principles of evolution.(mark me i am not talking about hybrids or mutants achieved by biotechnological means)? And when you say that our scientists have only had 50 years the earth has had billions,i can't even comment on the fallacy of the logic you insinuate,do you think Earth had a 'intentional part' in creating and evolving life.)

5.I am telling you that if you can prove evolutionar biology and explain away all the scientific objections then why don't you write a paper and claim your Nobel prize?

6.According the premises of evolution can man one day probably billions of years later become an all knowing omnipotent entity that cannot be seen?

7.What are the observable evolving characters observed in man in the last 250000 years(i.e where are the random beneficial mutations,have they taken a break?)?

8.Since evolution is traditionally considered a gradual process then how did new organs evolve that were previously not present in lesser life forms?where are the intermediate stages?Where is the objective proof?

9.Do you realise the complexity of a simple cell?can you explain all the processes taking place and their evolution by principles of natural selection?

10.How do you explain the evolution of tumor supressors,DNA templete correction mechanisms and countless other extremely complex mechanism that are only spokes in the life cycle of a human body cell?

11.And when you add that the 'random beneficial mutations' can take place only in the germ cells to be passed on,what are the new probabalities you encounter now.(i.e mutations in normal somatic cells have no bearing)?

Sorry have to stop here for now since i don't have more time will continue later if you please.


#127    Arbitran

Arbitran

    Post-Singularitan Hyperturing Synthetic Intelligence

  • Member
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 September 2012 - 08:05 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

I love biology and have studied it all my life and let me tell you that evolution has got nothing to do with biology,biology is the study of various organisms that are alive and not a commentary on how life evolved or speculations regarding the same.There is a lot of objectivity in the field of biology and the theory of evolution is just one measly theory and a sadly a currently accepted member of this family of biological science.Human anatomy,cell biology,molecular biology,bio informatics,pharmacology,medicine,zoology,botany,..........and countless other branches of biology are based on hard scientic facts and experiments which are reproducible in a lab or can be observed in nature....same was the case 50 years back and same is the case now (though detailing and new breakthroughs through experimentation,research,publication and reproducible experiments are still happening and adding to the wealth of knowledge........and peer review in these cases is only to check if the experiment is done under the circumstances mentioned in the paper submitted and the results are reproducible and conclsuions are in line with the result..........if a paper checks out on all these criteria then choice of accepting it or rejecting it is not in the hand of the reviewer.In the above mentioned conditions i can accept the veracity of scientific knowledge that these branches of biology preach.

Saying that evolution has nothing to do with biology is like saying that Einstein's theory of relativity has nothing to do with physics. Yes, evolutionary theory is but one model; and yet it happens to be much more than "measly", given that it is the substrate upon which the entire modern science of biology is founded. And yes, all modern biology is influenced or directly involves evolutionary science (if you were a genuine biotechnologist, you might know how obvious that is). Human anatomy, cellular biology, molecular biology, bioinformatics, pharmacology, medicine, zoology and botany all are built upon the vast foundation of evolutionary theory. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with your understanding of biology, but it's a fact; and as I've said many times before, your ignorance of biology doesn't affect the facts about it in any way.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

Stating that evolution is biology(or even the crux of it) is like stating astro physics is the crux of physics.
Since i sense that this debate is not going anywhere and typing pages is not going to help i will just repeat a few questions which as you claim you have answered.

Your analogy is flawed. If you wanted to make a more accurate comparison, you'd have said something more along the lines of: evolution is to biology what classical and quantum mechanics combined are to physics.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

1.What mechanisms do you suggest for formation of entirely new genes or gene chains and systems?Verifiable objective experimental proof for the same.

I've already explained this. http://www.scienceda...10613012758.htm

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

2.How did life evolve?if it did evolve what are the chances of evolution of the proto multicellular organism.(photon from the sun reach the earth not because of chance but since they are on a direct trajectory for Earth.This process is a simple process and doesn't require higher organisation.The probability of an event of a photon from the sun on a direct trajectory towards earth to reach the Earth without any obstructions is '1'. Also i would like to add that the probability of you falling if you jump of a cliff naked without any other help is also '1'.What is the probability of a random beneficial mutations leading to a beneficial physical characteristic?)

The probability of one photon reaching Earth is one. The probability of trillions of them reaching Earth at the same time is, obviously, in the trillions. It's pretty simple.

The probability of random beneficial mutations leading to speciation or adaption are all but zero; however, you happen to neglect to mention natural selection, which is vital to the process of evolution, in that it is the key process by which beneficial mutations are allowed to proliferate and result in gene flow.

And I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "proto-multicellular organism". I presume you're referring to bacterial mats or slime molds. Either way, again, the alleged probability is both indeterminate, as well as irrelevant.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

3.If you are talking about a group of populations breeding over generations and then gradually give rise to a population that is a completely new species you have to agree that the demarcation has to happen at one particular generation which wont be able to reproduce with it's predeccesor and cannot happen over generations.How do you propose to explain the same without saying 'saltation' being absolutely right?

No, I don't have to agree that saltation is correct, nor would I have to say that the demarcation has to be made at any particular point. Yes, one can have gradual degrees of diminishing compatibility between progressively speciating lineages without having to resort to the notion of saltation. I've already explained that process. Eventually, horses and donkeys and lions and tigers will be too distantly related to be compatible in reproduction; during this period of speciation, the ability for these respective pairs to produce hybrids such as mules or ligers/tigons will gradually fade (unless their disparate lines begin to grow closer to one another again, over successive generations of interbreeding, which would likely become more and more successful in such a scenario; it's possible that someday the ligers/tigons and mules will be viable, reproducing species, though I would argue that this is somewhat improbable). For example, female mules have, on occasion, been shown to be capable of siring viable offspring (though males have so far been shown to be sterile); the resulting offspring are referred to as "Molly/John mules" (depending on gender), and are fathered by a purebred horse or donkey. If over time the probability of mule stallions being capable of successfully reproducing with mule mares increases, it is possible that the mule may become a viable species in and of itself (thus, on a cladogram, the mule might be represented as a convergence of the horse and donkey lines).    

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

4.Have scores of scientist working in modern technological labs been able to produce even one new species by using principles of evolution.(mark me i am not talking about hybrids or mutants achieved by biotechnological means)? And when you say that our scientists have only had 50 years the earth has had billions,i can't even comment on the fallacy of the logic you insinuate,do you think Earth had a 'intentional part' in creating and evolving life.)


William R. Rice and George W. Salt found experimental evidence of sympatric speciation in the common fruit fly. They collected a population of Drosophila melanogaster from Davis, California and placed the pupae into a habitat maze. Newborn flies had to investigate the maze to find food. The flies had three choices to take in finding food. Light and dark (phototaxis), up and down (geotaxis), and the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis) were the three options. This eventually divided the flies into 42 spatio-temporal habitats.
They then cultured two strains that chose opposite habitats. One of the strains emerged early, immediately flying upward in the dark attracted to the acetaldehyde. The other strain emerged late and immediately flew downward, attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from the two strains were then placed together in the maze and allowed to mate at the food site. They then were collected. A selective penalty was imposed on the female flies that switched habitats. This entailed that none of their gametes would pass on to the next generation. After 25 generations of this mating test, it showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. They repeated the experiment again without creating the penalty against habitat switching and the result was the same; reproductive isolation was produced.

Source: http://en.wikipedia...._common_descent

I, and several others, have already mentioned this. I've noted other examples already also. Your ignorance of our answers doesn't make them disappear.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

5.I am telling you that if you can prove evolutionar biology and explain away all the scientific objections then why don't you write a paper and claim your Nobel prize?

Why would I, personally, need to "prove" a theory which has already been proven beyond doubt by thousands of other biologists over the past century and a half? Evolutionary biology has already been proven; and all of the "scientific objections" have already been explained away. Yours is a completely moot point; that your knowledge of evolution seems to be grounded in the 19th Century is not my concern.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

6.According the premises of evolution can man one day probably billions of years later become an all knowing omnipotent entity that cannot be seen?

Given the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are logically untenable, I would say no. As to whether or not evolution would yield invisible people someday, I would say that it is exceptionally unlikely; biology would tend to deny that possibility (unless you're thinking some sort of camouflage, like a chameleon or cephalopod). In any case, I see no reason why natural selection would favor any of these features. Presuming the human lineage continues on for billions of years into the future for the sake of argument, I cannot possible predict what forms might emerge; but either way, the idea of humanity rising to godlike status would be far more likely achieved through technological rather than biological means.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

7.What are the observable evolving characters observed in man in the last 250000 years(i.e where are the random beneficial mutations,have they taken a break?)?

For one, eye colour.

In humans, the inheritance pattern followed by blue eyes is considered similar to that of a recessive trait (in general, eye color inheritance is considered a polygenic trait, meaning that it is controlled by the interactions of several genes, not just one).[13] In 2008, new research suggested that people with blue eyes have a single common ancestor. Scientists tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. "Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Eiberg.[39] Eiberg and colleagues showed in a study published in Human Genetics that a mutation in the 86th intron of the HERC2 gene, which is hypothesized to interact with the OCA2 gene promoter, reduced expression of OCA2 with subsequent reduction in melanin production.[40] The authors concluded that the mutation may have arisen in a single individual probably living in the northwestern part of the Black Sea region (around modern Romania) 6,000–10,000 years ago during the Neolithic revolution.[39][40][41] Eiberg stated, "A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes."
The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue. If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism.

Source: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Eye_colour

Here's another answer to your question: http://discovermagaz...ke-they-used-to

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

8.Since evolution is traditionally considered a gradual process then how did new organs evolve that were previously not present in lesser life forms?where are the intermediate stages?Where is the objective proof?

"Is traditionally considered a gradual process"? I think you mean: "has always been considered a gradual process" (unless you're counting Lamarck... which would be daft of you). "New" organs almost invariably descend from preexisting ones, which simply take on new function. For instance, the evolution of the eye has already been discussed; it descended gradually through a continuum of stages, beginning essentially with a simple collection of photosensitive cells (which, as has also already been discussed, are present even in the most primitive organisms). http://en.wikipedia....tion_of_the_eye

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

9.Do you realise the complexity of a simple cell?can you explain all the processes taking place and their evolution by principles of natural selection?

Yes, I realize the complexity of a modern cell. And yes, the principles of natural selection very well explain their evolution. As with most things, if you bothered to read a simple Wikipedia article once in a while instead of fallacious creationist sites, you'd already have answers to your questions.  

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

10.How do you explain the evolution of tumor supressors,DNA templete correction mechanisms and countless other extremely complex mechanism that are only spokes in the life cycle of a human body cell?

I've already answered your question: natural selection. I already explained it in more detail a page or two ago: I'm not going to bother to write it all out again. Natural selection favors organisms which are better suited to survive; it should go without saying that an organism with superior resistance to tumor formation will be better suited to survive.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

11.And when you add that the 'random beneficial mutations' can take place only in the germ cells to be passed on,what are the new probabalities you encounter now.(i.e mutations in normal somatic cells have no bearing)?

Sorry have to stop here for now since i don't have more time will continue later if you please.

Not sure I understand what you're asking... Are you insinuating more "probabilities" again? Yes, only germinal mutations can be passed on through gametes, but how is that remedial biological fact relevant?

Edited by Arbitran, 15 September 2012 - 08:11 PM.

Try to realize it's all within yourself / No-one else can make you change / And to see you're really only very small / And life flows on within you and without you. / We were talking about the love that's gone so cold and the people / Who gain the world and lose their soul / They don't know they can't see are you one of them? / When you've seen beyond yourself then you may find peace of mind / Is waiting there / And the time will come / when you see we're all one and life flows on within you and without you. ~ George Harrison

#128    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 16 September 2012 - 07:49 AM

View PostArbitran, on 15 September 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

You have just radically altered my perception of biotechnologists... If you can claim to have the prefix "bio-" in your occupational title, then I should have expected an actually knowledge of biology (again, I'll grant you that your understanding of molecular and cellular terminology is impressive, but your knowledge of evolutionary biology is staggeringly poor). Every single thing you've stated about evolution has so far been pathetic creationist rehash; I should have thought that an alleged biotechnologist would, if he were genuinely attempting to "poke holes" in evolutionary theory, oh, I don't know... come up with his own "proofs"? Because honestly, all you've done so far is rewrap old creationist arguments which have been debunked long ago; well, that, and parade your own glaring lack of education in evolutionary biology. I can only presume that you are likely not an authentic biotechnologist, and are likely simply pretending to be one in order to give some attempt at elevating your status to one which might be more credible in this debate. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but given your displayed, deplorably exiguous comprehension of even the most remedial of topics with pertinence to evolutionary biology (or most biology in general), I remain highly skeptical of your claim. I should think that a genuine biotechnologist would be well-versed enough in biology to know how comically-stupid the "monkey transformed into a human" argument is; but then, maybe you could have made it through sheer luck? Or deceit perhaps? In any case, I reiterate: the idea that a claimed "biotechnologist" could have such an appalling lack of comprehension of evolutionary biology is very, very hard to believe...
That is exactly what i am trying to tell you that evolutionary biology on a macroscale has become rudimentary and falsified by our present knowledge of molecular biology,genetics etc.If the foundations on which you build your theory no longer confer with your theory then where does the theory stand?I think you would prefer that 'a monkey gave birth to a man' more so you can have that.I don't need to comprehend when i talk of science i like to see objective proof.The understanding of cell complexity has changed leaps and bounds hence most scientists and researchers have started believing in God again and not evolution.(Doesn't mean i believe in God)


#129    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 16 September 2012 - 08:27 AM

View PostArbitran, on 15 September 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

Saying that evolution has nothing to do with biology is like saying that Einstein's theory of relativity has nothing to do with physics. Yes, evolutionary theory is but one model; and yet it happens to be much more than "measly", given that it is the substrate upon which the entire modern science of biology is founded. And yes, all modern biology is influenced or directly involves evolutionary science (if you were a genuine biotechnologist, you might know how obvious that is). Human anatomy, cellular biology, molecular biology, bioinformatics, pharmacology, medicine, zoology and botany all are built upon the vast foundation of evolutionary theory. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with your understanding of biology, but it's a fact; and as I've said many times before, your ignorance of biology doesn't affect the facts about it in any way. Your analogy is flawed. If you wanted to make a more accurate comparison, you'd have said something more along the lines of: evolution is to biology what classical and quantum mechanics combined are to physics. I've already explained this. http://www.scienceda...10613012758.htm The probability of one photon reaching Earth is one. The probability of trillions of them reaching Earth at the same time is, obviously, in the trillions. It's pretty simple. The probability of random beneficial mutations leading to speciation or adaption are all but zero; however, you happen to neglect to mention natural selection, which is vital to the process of evolution, in that it is the key process by which beneficial mutations are allowed to proliferate and result in gene flow. And I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "proto-multicellular organism". I presume you're referring to bacterial mats or slime molds. Either way, again, the alleged probability is both indeterminate, as well as irrelevant. No, I don't have to agree that saltation is correct, nor would I have to say that the demarcation has to be made at any particular point. Yes, one can have gradual degrees of diminishing compatibility between progressively speciating lineages without having to resort to the notion of saltation. I've already explained that process. Eventually, horses and donkeys and lions and tigers will be too distantly related to be compatible in reproduction; during this period of speciation, the ability for these respective pairs to produce hybrids such as mules or ligers/tigons will gradually fade (unless their disparate lines begin to grow closer to one another again, over successive generations of interbreeding, which would likely become more and more successful in such a scenario; it's possible that someday the ligers/tigons and mules will be viable, reproducing species, though I would argue that this is somewhat improbable). For example, female mules have, on occasion, been shown to be capable of siring viable offspring (though males have so far been shown to be sterile); the resulting offspring are referred to as "Molly/John mules" (depending on gender), and are fathered by a purebred horse or donkey. If over time the probability of mule stallions being capable of successfully reproducing with mule mares increases, it is possible that the mule may become a viable species in and of itself (thus, on a cladogram, the mule might be represented as a convergence of the horse and donkey lines). William R. Rice and George W. Salt found experimental evidence of sympatric speciation in the common fruit fly. They collected a population of Drosophila melanogaster from Davis, California and placed the pupae into a habitat maze. Newborn flies had to investigate the maze to find food. The flies had three choices to take in finding food. Light and dark (phototaxis), up and down (geotaxis), and the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis) were the three options. This eventually divided the flies into 42 spatio-temporal habitats. They then cultured two strains that chose opposite habitats. One of the strains emerged early, immediately flying upward in the dark attracted to the acetaldehyde. The other strain emerged late and immediately flew downward, attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from the two strains were then placed together in the maze and allowed to mate at the food site. They then were collected. A selective penalty was imposed on the female flies that switched habitats. This entailed that none of their gametes would pass on to the next generation. After 25 generations of this mating test, it showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. They repeated the experiment again without creating the penalty against habitat switching and the result was the same; reproductive isolation was produced. Source: http://en.wikipedia...._common_descent I, and several others, have already mentioned this. I've noted other examples already also. Your ignorance of our answers doesn't make them disappear. Why would I, personally, need to "prove" a theory which has already been proven beyond doubt by thousands of other biologists over the past century and a half? Evolutionary biology has already been proven; and all of the "scientific objections" have already been explained away. Yours is a completely moot point; that your knowledge of evolution seems to be grounded in the 19th Century is not my concern. Given the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are logically untenable, I would say no. As to whether or not evolution would yield invisible people someday, I would say that it is exceptionally unlikely; biology would tend to deny that possibility (unless you're thinking some sort of camouflage, like a chameleon or cephalopod). In any case, I see no reason why natural selection would favor any of these features. Presuming the human lineage continues on for billions of years into the future for the sake of argument, I cannot possible predict what forms might emerge; but either way, the idea of humanity rising to godlike status would be far more likely achieved through technological rather than biological means. For one, eye colour. In humans, the inheritance pattern followed by blue eyes is considered similar to that of a recessive trait (in general, eye color inheritance is considered a polygenic trait, meaning that it is controlled by the interactions of several genes, not just one).[13] In 2008, new research suggested that people with blue eyes have a single common ancestor. Scientists tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. "Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Eiberg.[39] Eiberg and colleagues showed in a study published in Human Genetics that a mutation in the 86th intron of the HERC2 gene, which is hypothesized to interact with the OCA2 gene promoter, reduced expression of OCA2 with subsequent reduction in melanin production.[40] The authors concluded that the mutation may have arisen in a single individual probably living in the northwestern part of the Black Sea region (around modern Romania) 6,000–10,000 years ago during the Neolithic revolution.[39][40][41] Eiberg stated, "A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes." The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue. If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism. Source: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Eye_colour Here's another answer to your question: http://discovermagaz...ke-they-used-to "Is traditionally considered a gradual process"? I think you mean: "has always been considered a gradual process" (unless you're counting Lamarck... which would be daft of you). "New" organs almost invariably descend from preexisting ones, which simply take on new function. For instance, the evolution of the eye has already been discussed; it descended gradually through a continuum of stages, beginning essentially with a simple collection of photosensitive cells (which, as has also already been discussed, are present even in the most primitive organisms). http://en.wikipedia....tion_of_the_eye Yes, I realize the complexity of a modern cell. And yes, the principles of natural selection very well explain their evolution. As with most things, if you bothered to read a simple Wikipedia article once in a while instead of fallacious creationist sites, you'd already have answers to your questions. I've already answered your question: natural selection. I already explained it in more detail a page or two ago: I'm not going to bother to write it all out again. Natural selection favors organisms which are better suited to survive; it should go without saying that an organism with superior resistance to tumor formation will be better suited to survive. Not sure I understand what you're asking... Are you insinuating more "probabilities" again? Yes, only germinal mutations can be passed on through gametes, but how is that remedial biological fact relevant?
1.They fields of biology you mentioned have nothing to do theory of evolution, it was thought initially that breakthroughs in these fields would help support evolution but it has only helped in destroying this theory.Molecular biology has is not based on evolutionary theory, and you can read the definitions of a ll the other subjects you mentioned and you will find that they have nothing to do with Darwin's stupid theory.On the contrary Evolutionists constantly try to broach upon these subjects to try and give some credence to their theory but they never get it.(Also you can talk about 'Darwin's missing fossils' which after 150 years of search you have still not found).Evolutionist only matter in any other branch of biology because like i said before they are in positions to grant funds and no other reason.Great scientists and researchers in all these other biological fields you mentioned have no use for your pet theory as their science is based on experimentation and objective proof and not extrapolations.

2. Since you finally talked about the Drosophila experiment which i suggested to you in one of the previous post,you should also not what happened to those mutation after subsequent generations were produced,the mutations were eliminated naturally.And again no new species was formed,the drosophila remained a drosophila,all that was induced was reproductive isolation.Evolutionist just extrapolated this to speciation (lol XD) some scientist they call themselves.

3.Do you realize that what appears to you on a surface as a 'small change' in an organism has a extremely huge number of implications at the cellular and genetic level,this is something we didn't know until last 20 odd years and every time we look closer we find life to be more and more complex on a cellular and genetic level.This the the reason that many scientists in all these other fields of biology have become convinced that evolution cannot account for such complexity and have become Theistic.

4.Like i said before all evolutionist can do is parade 'variation' and 'adaptation' which are natural and well studied and accepted processes and extrapolate them to 'speciation' without any objective or laboratory proof.(i am saying this in the context of the eye color example you gave which is impacted by switching on and off certain genes and due to the regulatory genes,when i asked proof for evolution i didn't ask for proof for 'variation' i asked objective proof for 'speciation' which is the crux of evolution............don't try you will find none.....)

5.This is the first time you have talked some sense (sadly it is by rejecting your own premise of evolution) that man probably after billions of years cannot turn into an omnipotent,allknowing,invisible being since you feel that natural selection wouldn't support it,i don't know why you feel natural selection wouldn't support such a being but still.I am happy that you are bewildered at this possibility of man evolving into something like what i described even after millions of years,as such type of bewilderment is what makes me doubt evolution in the first place.
Now what i would like you to do is go back to the time when according to the evolutionist the first form of life had just come into existence, no do you think these first form of life if it could,would even try to comprehend that after billions of years they would have evolved into us Humans.I don't think it could the same way you don't think that man can evolve into an omnipotent invisible being even after billions of years of evolution.

6.Tumor supressors and DNA correction mechanisms correct any form of genetic mutation hence they cannot be accounted for by evolution,they suppress and remove your 'random genetic mutations'.

7.If one has to believe things based only on faith then there are quite a few options and evolution is one of them.


#130    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 16 September 2012 - 10:02 AM

View PostArbitran, on 15 September 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

Saying that evolution has nothing to do with biology is like saying that Einstein's theory of relativity has nothing to do with physics. Yes, evolutionary theory is but one model; and yet it happens to be much more than "measly", given that it is the substrate upon which the entire modern science of biology is founded. And yes, all modern biology is influenced or directly involves evolutionary science (if you were a genuine biotechnologist, you might know how obvious that is). Human anatomy, cellular biology, molecular biology, bioinformatics, pharmacology, medicine, zoology and botany all are built upon the vast foundation of evolutionary theory. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with your understanding of biology, but it's a fact; and as I've said many times before, your ignorance of biology doesn't affect the facts about it in any way. Your analogy is flawed. If you wanted to make a more accurate comparison, you'd have said something more along the lines of: evolution is to biology what classical and quantum mechanics combined are to physics. I've already explained this. http://www.scienceda...10613012758.htm The probability of one photon reaching Earth is one. The probability of trillions of them reaching Earth at the same time is, obviously, in the trillions. It's pretty simple. The probability of random beneficial mutations leading to speciation or adaption are all but zero; however, you happen to neglect to mention natural selection, which is vital to the process of evolution, in that it is the key process by which beneficial mutations are allowed to proliferate and result in gene flow. And I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "proto-multicellular organism". I presume you're referring to bacterial mats or slime molds. Either way, again, the alleged probability is both indeterminate, as well as irrelevant. No, I don't have to agree that saltation is correct, nor would I have to say that the demarcation has to be made at any particular point. Yes, one can have gradual degrees of diminishing compatibility between progressively speciating lineages without having to resort to the notion of saltation. I've already explained that process. Eventually, horses and donkeys and lions and tigers will be too distantly related to be compatible in reproduction; during this period of speciation, the ability for these respective pairs to produce hybrids such as mules or ligers/tigons will gradually fade (unless their disparate lines begin to grow closer to one another again, over successive generations of interbreeding, which would likely become more and more successful in such a scenario; it's possible that someday the ligers/tigons and mules will be viable, reproducing species, though I would argue that this is somewhat improbable). For example, female mules have, on occasion, been shown to be capable of siring viable offspring (though males have so far been shown to be sterile); the resulting offspring are referred to as "Molly/John mules" (depending on gender), and are fathered by a purebred horse or donkey. If over time the probability of mule stallions being capable of successfully reproducing with mule mares increases, it is possible that the mule may become a viable species in and of itself (thus, on a cladogram, the mule might be represented as a convergence of the horse and donkey lines). William R. Rice and George W. Salt found experimental evidence of sympatric speciation in the common fruit fly. They collected a population of Drosophila melanogaster from Davis, California and placed the pupae into a habitat maze. Newborn flies had to investigate the maze to find food. The flies had three choices to take in finding food. Light and dark (phototaxis), up and down (geotaxis), and the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis) were the three options. This eventually divided the flies into 42 spatio-temporal habitats. They then cultured two strains that chose opposite habitats. One of the strains emerged early, immediately flying upward in the dark attracted to the acetaldehyde. The other strain emerged late and immediately flew downward, attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from the two strains were then placed together in the maze and allowed to mate at the food site. They then were collected. A selective penalty was imposed on the female flies that switched habitats. This entailed that none of their gametes would pass on to the next generation. After 25 generations of this mating test, it showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. They repeated the experiment again without creating the penalty against habitat switching and the result was the same; reproductive isolation was produced. Source: http://en.wikipedia...._common_descent I, and several others, have already mentioned this. I've noted other examples already also. Your ignorance of our answers doesn't make them disappear. Why would I, personally, need to "prove" a theory which has already been proven beyond doubt by thousands of other biologists over the past century and a half? Evolutionary biology has already been proven; and all of the "scientific objections" have already been explained away. Yours is a completely moot point; that your knowledge of evolution seems to be grounded in the 19th Century is not my concern. Given the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are logically untenable, I would say no. As to whether or not evolution would yield invisible people someday, I would say that it is exceptionally unlikely; biology would tend to deny that possibility (unless you're thinking some sort of camouflage, like a chameleon or cephalopod). In any case, I see no reason why natural selection would favor any of these features. Presuming the human lineage continues on for billions of years into the future for the sake of argument, I cannot possible predict what forms might emerge; but either way, the idea of humanity rising to godlike status would be far more likely achieved through technological rather than biological means. For one, eye colour. In humans, the inheritance pattern followed by blue eyes is considered similar to that of a recessive trait (in general, eye color inheritance is considered a polygenic trait, meaning that it is controlled by the interactions of several genes, not just one).[13] In 2008, new research suggested that people with blue eyes have a single common ancestor. Scientists tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. "Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Eiberg.[39] Eiberg and colleagues showed in a study published in Human Genetics that a mutation in the 86th intron of the HERC2 gene, which is hypothesized to interact with the OCA2 gene promoter, reduced expression of OCA2 with subsequent reduction in melanin production.[40] The authors concluded that the mutation may have arisen in a single individual probably living in the northwestern part of the Black Sea region (around modern Romania) 6,000–10,000 years ago during the Neolithic revolution.[39][40][41] Eiberg stated, "A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes." The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue. If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism. Source: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Eye_colour Here's another answer to your question: http://discovermagaz...ke-they-used-to "Is traditionally considered a gradual process"? I think you mean: "has always been considered a gradual process" (unless you're counting Lamarck... which would be daft of you). "New" organs almost invariably descend from preexisting ones, which simply take on new function. For instance, the evolution of the eye has already been discussed; it descended gradually through a continuum of stages, beginning essentially with a simple collection of photosensitive cells (which, as has also already been discussed, are present even in the most primitive organisms). http://en.wikipedia....tion_of_the_eye Yes, I realize the complexity of a modern cell. And yes, the principles of natural selection very well explain their evolution. As with most things, if you bothered to read a simple Wikipedia article once in a while instead of fallacious creationist sites, you'd already have answers to your questions. I've already answered your question: natural selection. I already explained it in more detail a page or two ago: I'm not going to bother to write it all out again. Natural selection favors organisms which are better suited to survive; it should go without saying that an organism with superior resistance to tumor formation will be better suited to survive. Not sure I understand what you're asking... Are you insinuating more "probabilities" again? Yes, only germinal mutations can be passed on through gametes, but how is that remedial biological fact relevant?
1.They fields of biology you mentioned have nothing to do theory of evolution, it was thought initially that breakthroughs in these fields would help support evolution but it has only helped in destroying this theory.Molecular biology has is not based on evolutionary theory, and you can read the definitions of a ll the other subjects you mentioned and you will find that they have nothing to do with Darwin's stupid theory.On the contrary Evolutionists constantly try to broach upon these subjects to try and give some credence to their theory but they never get it.(Also you can talk about 'Darwin's missing fossils' which after 150 years of search you have still not found).Evolutionist only matter in any other branch of biology because like i said before they are in positions to grant funds and no other reason.Great scientists and researchers in all these other biological fields you mentioned have no use for your pet theory as their science is based on experimentation and objective proof and not extrapolations.

2. Since you finally talked about the Drosophila experiment which i suggested to you in one of the previous post,you should also not what happened to those mutation after subsequent generations were produced,the mutations were eliminated naturally.And again no new species was formed,the drosophila remained a drosophila,all that was induced was reproductive isolation.Evolutionist just extrapolated this to speciation (lol XD) some scientist they call themselves.

3.Do you realize that what appears to you on a surface as a 'small change' in an organism has a extremely huge number of implications at the cellular and genetic level,this is something we didn't know until last 20 odd years and every time we look closer we find life to be more and more complex on a cellular and genetic level.This the the reason that many scientists in all these other fields of biology have become convinced that evolution cannot account for such complexity and have become Theistic.

4.Like i said before all evolutionist can do is parade 'variation' and 'adaptation' which are natural and well studied and accepted processes and extrapolate them to 'speciation' without any objective or laboratory proof.(i am saying this in the context of the eye color example you gave which is impacted by switching on and off certain genes and due to the regulatory genes,when i asked proof for evolution i didn't ask for proof for 'variation' i asked objective proof for 'speciation' which is the crux of evolution............don't try you will find none.....)

5.This is the first time you have talked some sense (sadly it is by rejecting your own premise of evolution) that man probably after billions of years cannot turn into an omnipotent,allknowing,invisible being since you feel that natural selection wouldn't support it,i don't know why you feel natural selection wouldn't support such a being but still.I am happy that you are bewildered at this possibility of man evolving into something like what i described even after millions of years,as such type of bewilderment is what makes me doubt evolution in the first place.
Now what i would like you to do is go back to the time when according to the evolutionist the first form of life had just come into existence, no do you think these first form of life if it could,would even try to comprehend that after billions of years they would have evolved into us Humans.I don't think it could the same way you don't think that man can evolve into an omnipotent invisible being even after billions of years of evolution.

6.Tumor suppressors and DNA correction mechanisms correct any form of genetic mutation hence they cannot be accounted for by evolution,they suppress and remove your 'random genetic mutations'.

7.If one has to believe things based only on faith then there are quite a few options and evolution is one of them.


#131    metaskeptic

metaskeptic

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2010

Posted 16 September 2012 - 01:26 PM

View PostTheCosmicMind, on 27 August 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

Considering how much coast line has been lost since the last ice age I would say it is possible that a civilization could be lost to us.  How long did it take sea levels to rise?  Suppose you lived in a coastal city near the end of the ice age, would u have noticed rising sea levels?

Graham Hancock's underworld goes into this in great detail.

Ignoring any evidence, it seems reasonable that if we know that there was some kind of civilization 10,000 years ago (eg because of Gobliki Tepe high above sea level) then we should assume that there would have been a coastal civilization to. It would be odd to just have an exclusively  highland civilization.

And when you include that a vast continental sized swathe of land was flooded as the sea levels gradually (and sometimes cataclysmically) rose over 100 meters we should expect to see evidence of submerged civilizations.

I think this evidence is potentially there, though it is ridiculed by the mainstream.

Facinating!


#132    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,812 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 September 2012 - 10:53 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

What i am stating is when we talk about the evolution of the eye we should first ponder how the protoeye and the gene coding for that proto eye evolved along with the optic nerve?Once a gene template for the protoeye has evolved then it can undergo variations to give different phenptypes,so when i talk of the evolution of the eye i am talking about the evolution of the first gene template that codes for the protoeye.

Now we come to my friend pointing out that bacteria have photosensitivity and incredibly small generation times but stating this in respect to evolution of the eye which is a multicellular organ in itself and is a smaller part of a bigger multicellular organism having cells interacting continuosly with each other.When you talk of a bacterial cell it has no higher cellular organisation and is pretty flexible entity genetically hence it's use to generate various proteins etc by modern biotechnologist.So talking about evolution of  an eye which deals with 'Vision' and not basic photosensitivity in a multicellular complex organism with multiple tissue types and talking about a gene which imparts photosensitivity in single cell bacteria which is eons behind in complexity when compared to anything related to evolution of the eye.Also like i said stating evolution you can also explain how man can grow wings and fly away justy the way you explained how formation of optic nerve is not very complicated but when you factor in the probabilities of these things happening then probably you will get an idea of how much close to an apparent miracle it is.

When you talk about other organs,there are other organs which are simpler in function and complexity when compared to the eye and hence seem comparitively easier to explain,but what you pointed out is true that all these organs of varying level of complexity coming together and giving rise to a human seems like a near impossibility if only judged by existing concepts of evolution.

When i said sentient i meant sentient as i was talking about intelligent life even if it is a cockroach as it would still have 'free will' and choice.

Now when we talk about photsensitive group of cells in clamydia i would like to point out that you are already assuming that chlamydia as an organism evolved a eye organelle independantly after it established itself as a species just to make it sound reasonable that complex eyes could evolve since simpler versions of photosensitive cells are present in other organism and again i would repeat that you can point out hundred variations of the eye in different organism with varying level of complexity but when you try to explain how it first came into existence and organised iteself into a complex organelle with natural selection supporting each intermediate stage then it becomes difficult to digest.Why have chlamydia not grown a complex eye like ours since they multiply much faster and are more simpler and probably have existed way before complex multicellular organism came into play.Evolution and its present concept fail to explain presence of different species,it fails to explain how one species can evolve into another completely different species

You would have appeared to have missed a critical section in the quotation from Gehring (2002:12). To reiterate:

Analogous to jellyfish, the eye organelle is located directly at the base
of the effector organ, the flagellum, and the information is transmitted
directly from the eye organelle to the flagellum without an intervening
information processing organelle.


Thus, the development of the optic nerve would appear to have occurred at a later temporal point than the development of early photoreceptors.

As a side note, you would appear to have some degree of difficulty with the concept of genetic mutations. Given your technical background, one would speculate that you are familiar with some of the mechanisms involved.

.


#133    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,812 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 September 2012 - 11:15 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 06:05 AM, said:

Can you please tell me who were the distant ancestors of modern man according to the theory of evolution?'Apelike' Are such adjectives used for these hypothetical ancestors by our evolutionists .Since you are so up in arms against a monkey turning into a man then how can you suggest that a single cell bacteria like organism turned into a man over however long a period of time?How does one species evolve into a completelty different species? Evoltuionist tell us that all species in the world had a common ancestor at some point of time and then we all evolved following different chains of evoltion,if you have no problem in accepting this statement then you should proudly accept that a monkey can turn into a man and probably thats what happened probably over a long period of time.

And if you are pro evolution then you shouldn't have a problem in accepting that a individual organism did undergo a major mutation (and didn't become impotent or sterile) at some point of time,was then favoured by natural selection,mass reproduced with other organism of it's species to give rise to a completely new species.Can you tell me why a monkey can't turn into man if you believe evolution in it's present state is valid?

Am unaware that anyone has made such a direct statement. One of the apparent flaws in your understandings is that you do not take into account the environmental aspects.

In this regard, it is advisable to bear in mind the numerous ecological niches filled by a plethora of species. Each of these species has, with varying degrees of success, been the result of long-term changes that allow a given species to reproduce within a given environmental framework. Such a species would be considered to be successful.

As environmental changes occur, species are faced with often significant challenges, as witnessed by the number of extinct species (estimated to be some 99% of all the species that have ever existed).

These environmental pressures act to select for beneficial mutations (alleles) that may or may not be already present.

As to your comments regarding the osteological evidence for intermediary and/or branching representatives of the hominid/hominin lineage, you are aware of the ever-growing volume of such?

.


#134    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • 9,303 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 16 September 2012 - 11:18 PM

View Postmetaskeptic, on 16 September 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

Graham Hancock's underworld goes into this in great detail.

Ignoring any evidence, it seems reasonable that if we know that there was some kind of civilization 10,000 years ago (eg because of Gobliki Tepe high above sea level) then we should assume that there would have been a coastal civilization to. It would be odd to just have an exclusively  highland civilization.

And when you include that a vast continental sized swathe of land was flooded as the sea levels gradually (and sometimes cataclysmically) rose over 100 meters we should expect to see evidence of submerged civilizations.

I think this evidence is potentially there, though it is ridiculed by the mainstream.

Facinating!

It is more the case that mainstream science pays little mind to such ideas because there remains no evidence to support them.

For the moment let's imagine a coastal civilization existing 10,000 or more years ago. Are we to expect that all members of this civilization witnessed rising waters but chose to remain until they all drowned? That's not a rational approach to the issue. Invariably, such a civilization would abandon its settlements and move inland, out of danger, and rebuild. The rise in sea levels was gradual, not abrupt. Nevertheless, no such evidence exists for a true civilization anywhere in the world in the Paleolithic or early Neolithic periods.

While an impressive Neolithic achievement in Anatolia, Göbekli Tepe does not represent the status of a true civilization. The site remains strikingly absent of any evidence for inhabitations and nothing there can tell us anything meaningful about the socio-political structure of the ancient people who created the monuments there.

It's the term "civilization" that's bandied about too loosely, perhaps. In all cases of which I can think, true civilizations were established on urban centers. There was a well-defined sense of socio-political hierarchy and central authority regulating an almost exclusively agricultural domain whose surpluses supported a professional class of people (e.g., bureaucrats, artisans, priests) . And while it's not true in all cases, most true civilizations developed or incorporated some form of writing.

With these criteria for defining a civilization, the oldest in the world remains Sumer, in what's now southern Iraq. This occurred around 3300 BCE. Pharaonic Egypt was a close second.

So in all reality, 10,000 or more years ago, you might well have small villages such as Catalhöyük in Anatolia or the Natufians of the Levant, but no real civilizations. To date, no evidence has surfaced to counter this fact.

In closing, I would not put too much weight on the writings of Graham Hancock. He is neither an historian nor a professional researcher. His ideas would never survive the scrutiny of a legitimate peer-review environment.

Posted Image
The evil overlord mummy moderator has spoken.

Visit My Blog!

#135    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • 9,303 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 16 September 2012 - 11:27 PM

I have to say, Harsh, even though I am not the best person on this board to argue the topic of evolution, my educational background leaves me quite certain that you really don't understand the basics of evolution. Comments like monkeys turning into men or the apparatuses of vision suddenly appearing from nowhere, are not espoused by the theory of evolution. And numerous times I've read where you refer to the origin of life or the creation thereof, and this is not even part of evolutionary science.

Anyone familiar with evolution will have to admit that it does not and cannot answer all of the questions. Still, that is the nature of science: the theory is refined as more evidence surfaces. In some cases, a theory must be abandoned if new evidence clarifies the need to do so. But despite your oft-repeated mantra about new evidence, it has not done anything to diminish or disprove evolution. The theory has become only stronger as time has gone by.

And although evolution is not perfect, it remains far and away the best-supported theory for how species adapt and develop. No form or avenue of creationism can stand against it. By its very nature, in fact, creationism (whatever form it takes) is anti-science.

Posted Image
The evil overlord mummy moderator has spoken.

Visit My Blog!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users