Reply With Quote
Yes, that could be considered adaptation, I suppose. I'm not a scientist either.
God hates you and you will spend eternity in .
That's the best I could come up with on such short notice.
Yes, that could be considered adaptation, I suppose. I'm not a scientist either.
BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
(it's evil cause I put the B in front of it)
It's evolution because the number of larger snails has been increasing. Therefore the original snails with the adaptation to grow larger have survived while the smaller snails have died out before being able to reproduce. Genetics, it's FANTASTIC.
Mutation is a random (HA!) process.
Evolution is a VERY unrandom process. Adaptations and gene groupings in organisms that provide compe ive advantages will tend to allow those organisms reproduce more often than those organisms without those advantages.
The thing about roaches staying the same is therefore a simple answer:
It is well adapted to compete in the environments that it inhabits, and that particular niche is widespread enough to allow the risk of extinction through large-scale natural disasters to be somewhat mitigated.
A second interesting thing is that it probably has, simply through its successes, created offshoots, as all successful organisms do.
Some evidence is pretty straightforward and does not lend itself to different "interpretations".
Red shift of light... the behavior of physical objects and so forth are examples. One cannot (logically) "interpret" the mass of a chemical sample differently depending on what one's religious views are.
What still no proof there was a burning bush? Damn it evolution has alot more holes than believing in an all powerfull being does!
It's like calling electric current random because at the quantum scale the individual electrons have positions not at points but in random distributions.
Great Barrier Reef
Here is a picture of a coral reef growing under water.
You know the largest reef in the world is in Australia, the Great Barrier Reef. ..... You know during World War II, some of the reef was damaged and destroyed by ships and anchors and bombs and stuff like that, so the environmentalist wackos went out there to see how fast it grows back. They watched it grow for 20 years. It was a government project! After watching the reef grow for 20 years, they decided the Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old. That is pretty old, but I have a question. If the earth is millions of years old, why don’t we have a bigger reef someplace? Why is the oldest reef less than 4,200 years old?
The oldest reef isn't less than 4200 years old.
WeeeeeeeeeeThe Chazy Reef formed a half-billion years ago in the warm shallow sea south of the equator. Over the eons, it drifted north to its present location.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...otection_x.htm
Because a reef can only grow at certain depths and under certain conditions. The damages parts grew quickly because is was in an unpopulated habitable area.
Mother nature sometimes has her own zoning laws.
Please provide genetic studies that prove this thesis.
Please provide genetic studies that support the thesis "mutations rarely, if ever, occur during microevolution."- mutations RARELY, if EVER, occur during microevolution AKA adaptation. If mutations don't even occur, how can many pile up?
Please provide proof of the implied thesis that cells always repair mutations.And to address those mutations which do occur, even the most basic cell repairs its DNA - mutations are considered undesirable by the cell.
Please provide a statement from any evolutionary biologist that states "fish 'gain' DNA to become amphibians."Besides, do defects on preexisting code = more code? How does the fish gain the DNA needed to become an amphibian?
Bull has been called.
You have made quite a few rather solid claims in this post. Either you can support them with actual data, or you must withdraw them as spurious.
Can you explain to me, in your own words, exactly how mutations occur?
We have data on this process and a good understanding of it. Your statements pretty much directly contradict what data is known of the process of mutation.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 10-22-2009 at 02:31 PM.
Where were you the rest of this topic, I've been missing you y'know.
and what's with the please before every post? you sound like one of my online instructors.
I see little point in "debating" with serial copy and pasters like mouse.
I use "please" because it is polite. I await your data.
Dear God, no it isnt. So incredibly untrue in every sense of the word.
Evolution, defined for the not-so-willing-to-understand:
Process by which adaptation and speciation occurs. Observable and provable.
What makes evolution a theory is that scientists cannot explain the EXACT mechanic by which adaptation (ie mutation) and speciation occur.
Loathe be the day when they do, because your entire basis for argument will crumble forever.
Its apparent that adaptation occur at the base genetic level. In order to understand and interpret any complex organism (thats from houseflys to erectus), their genetic code must be "broken", so to speak. It must be mapped, accounted for and understood.
Youre talking about billions of protein combinations per species. When Darwin proposed his theory (which has morphed over time and breakthrough), there were no genetic scientists.
If I am not mistaken, humanity hadnt even discovered DNA or RNA (could be wrong). So, even though Darwin's theory is a little over 100 years old, science never had a means to even analyze his theory beyond observable evidence (ie not enough).
Fast forward to 1980s and 90s where genetic breakthroughs are occuring at landmark rates and we as a species are still ill-equipped to map the genome's of mammals.
Even if every human had the ability to read, map and understand the human genome, and we all worked collectively together in order to "break it", the Earth would die before we were done. So until a breakthrough that assists that problem, you can still argue religion is like evolution without looking like a total idiot.
Flys, mosquitos, small insects really...yeah, we can do that. So its out there, cloning is not genetic research. Cloning is cheating, in a sense. Taking a stem cell from a known animal, implanting it in an unfertilized egg, then inserting that egg into another animal does not prove or disprove evolution in anyway. Cloning is a...circus ride compared to flight in space as it pertains to the genetic mapping of life on Earth.
No...humanity has nowhere near the capacity to map the human genome (yet), but we will. When we do, two things will happen for sure (with a mul ude of possibilities as well, but these two things for sure).
1) Creationists, as it pertains to strict interpretation of the Bible story, will be deemed cultists, nothing more. If you want to say God made the Big Bang happen, or that evolution is God's device, thats perfectly acceptable religious leanings in any scientific discussion.
2) People will start to live (potentially) forever. Yes, (potentially) forever. I say potentially because people will still die from accidents. No amount of medication in the world can "cure" you of being hit by a mac-truck and drug for two miles bouncing off the pavement at 70 miles an hour. Or falling off a building at greater than 6 stories. But yeah, if you sat still and only moved to eat and drink, you'll live forever...so long a syou dont leave the gas on, or a tornado sweeps through your house, or a home invader kills you. Like I said, potentially.
Religion and Evolution have absolutely nothing in common.
Nothing, nada, zero, zilch.
To even say that they do is grounds for complete dismissal in any topical conversation. The reason is because youre being either intellectually dishonest or youre completely and utterly oblivious to what evolution actually is and have no serious understanding of it in any meaningful capacity to argue against it.
All I've got is copy and pasting, because I'm not a geneticist or biologist and you're asking for studies. Second, it is only my interpretation and you think I'm full of anyway. Third, what copy and pasting I do have (that's directly relevant) comes from "biased" creationist resources, therefore you will be quick to write them off or question their science.
I won't waste mine or your time.
Did somebody actually paste in a Discovery Ins ute blurb?
Besides having been repeatedly caught being less than honest in their presentation/omission of materials and spokespeople, besides having their claptrap scientifically discredited ad nauseam by everyone from scientists to laymen... you do realize they're funded by the Moonies, right?
Can't be less credible than PBS, or Al Gore. BTW, do you have a link of dishonesty?Did somebody actually paste in a Discovery Ins ute blurb?
Besides having been repeatedly caught being less than honest in their presentation/omission of materials and spokespeople, besides having their claptrap scientifically discredited ad nauseam by everyone from scientists to laymen... you do realize they're funded by the Moonies, right?
Yeah see, that makes sense. I'm not religious but people who believe that scientific events didnt happen are imbeciles but if people believe that god spurred some scientific events then thats more rational
What you have is a verbatim understanding of creationist websites. They cannot support their claims when asked, which is why I wanted you try and present some data that supports their hypothesis.
I had hoped, in your digging, that you might start critically analysing all the claims made by these websites, and applying simple logic to them, and decide that these claims must be supported by some modi of data.
Again, an easily testable hypothesis.- mutations RARELY, if EVER, occur during microevolution AKA adaptation.
If creationists truly are right about this thesis, they should be able to provide mountains of evidence showing that mutations are exceedingly rare, as mutation rates in smaller shorter-lived animals can be, and have been measured.
Given that we have some pretty good data on the methods and rates of mutation, and there is a LOT of scientific literature on it..
I believe that the data we have shows, quite clearly, that mutations do happen at a rate much greater than creationist theory postulates.
What creationist websites have is bad logic and claims backed by little more than active misrepresentations of what the theory of evolution is, as mouse's posts so elequently show. These misrepresentations are at best, honest misunderstandings, or at worst, outright distortions.
One good thing about science is that it puts forth TESTABLE hypotheses, such as you advanced in your post.
This claim can easily be tested by studying shorter-lived animals and bacteria. If one finds one or even many instances of animals changing in non-precoded ways, i.e. mutations that change genes in ways NOT in the original source genes, then it is disproven.Microevolution isn't that. It's a misnomer. It's simply animals adapting to their environment - properly termed "adaptation." All adaptations allowable are precoded
The mechanisms of mutation have been studied rather closely and are given here:
http://www.genetichealth.com/g101_changes_in_dna.shtml
If you want specific papers showing how these genes change and mutate, I can probably ask my wife's professors for scientific papers studying each type of mutation.
Since the statement : "All adaptations allowable are precoded" is fully testible, and has been proven false, we cannot accept it as a valid hypothesis.
Cells do repair themselves by some self-correcting mechanisms. Again a testable hypothesis.And to address those mutations which do occur, even the most basic cell repairs its DNA - mutations are considered undesirable by the cell.
If the above statement and the implication that mutations are mostly self correcting were correct, then we would see that cells fix mutations on a regular basis.
This implication would preclude most forms of cancer. Since we observe cancers, and indeed many forms of non-corrected mutations, we can only assume this implication has been tested to be false as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The basic thing I am really trying to get at is that you should really, truly look at the underlying claims, and cut them into individual components.
If they can be tested, then they should be.
If they present faulty logic, then they should be considered faulty ideas.
I have shown consistently that mouse's posts from most of his sources almost invariably fall into the logical fallacy known as "strawman", in which a specious distortion of an idea is presented as the idea and then somehow debunking that false idea is sufficient to "disprove" the oringinal real idea.
Yes and no.
Here are two theories:
1) You can run off of a cliff, realize what you have done, then run back to solid ground before plummeting to your death.
2) You will start falling the instant the ground is no longer resisting the force of gravity for you.
The evidence for the first theory can be had from Road Runner cartoons, and is somewhat limited.
The evidence for the second theory is *somewhat* more extensive.
Yes, both are theories, but one fits observed data much better than the other.
That is the part that creationists like to leave out, and is part of the half-truths and lies of omission that must be commited to dupe people into thinking that the two theories are somehow equal in weight of evidence.
I won't disagree. A lot of what I read is creationist, it's true - and its true much of what Mouse posts are 'posterboys' for the effort that have been thoroughly debunked by professionals and amateurs alike. I don't want to appear as if I'm advocating these ideas from my own personal experiences in a lab or something, because that's obviously not true. And I've already admitted this thread that on a microscopic scale, and further down to the genetic, it seems like one can observe or readily infer based on observations evolution step by step.
RG i sent you a pm.
Last edited by z0sa; 10-22-2009 at 04:53 PM.
Indeed. Critical thinking is a learned skill, and one I hope you continue to acquire and practice.
Debunk this.....
The lies Evolutionist's spread everyday!
Ancient Ice
Most scientists today believe that various places on this planet, such as Greenland, the Antarctic, and many other places, have some very old ice. The ice in these areas appears to be layered in a very distinctive annual pattern. In fact, this pattern is both visually and chemically recognizable and extends downward some 4,000 to 5,000 meters. What happens is that as the snow from a previous year is buried under a new layer of snow, it is compacted over time with the weight of each additional layer of snow above it. This compacted snow is called the “firn” layer. After several meters this layers snowy firn turns into layers of solid ice (note that 30cm of compacted snow compresses further into about 10cm of ice). These layers are much thinner on the Antarctic ice cap as compared to the Greenland ice cap since Antarctica averages only 5cm of "water equivalent" per year while Greenland averages over 50cm of water equivalent. 1,2 since these layers get even thinner as they are buried under more and more snow and ice, due to compression and lateral flow (see diagram), the thinner layers of the Antarctic ice cap become much harder to count than those of the Greenland ice cap at an equivalent depth. So, scientists feel that most accurate historical information comes from Greenland, although much older ice comes from other drier places. Still, the ice cores drilled in the Greenland ice cap, such as the American Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP2) and the European Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP), are felt to be very old indeed - upwards of 160,000 years old.
Like the coelacanth fish from the previous page. This is another claim made that has been proven wrong. The assumption was that for every light and dark area found in ice, in either the north or south pole. Would represent 1 passing year. And because science has basically cornered the market of doing ice core drills. They figured no one would ever prove them wrong. They basically made this statement about the different colors found in ice cores, without really testing it to make sure. So it was a guess based on a theory (evolution, and the time required for it to happen) that they wanted to support. A theory that was starving for supporting evidence. So evolutionists stuck their foot in their mouth on this one, and are unwilling to admit their mistake. And this mistake is still being taught in every science-evolutionist class in both high school, and college. It is even in the school text books.
Just like the Ernest Haeckel fraud , which by the way will be reprinted and taught again (what next, Piltdown man?). Science refuses to remove the information, unless someone makes them. And like the Stanley Miller experiment. The problems are not mentioned, so that the theory of evolution can for the most part, always go unchallenged.
Just in case some of you still are in the dark scientist claim the layers of each core show how many years the ice is and the rings are solid proof the earth is Billions of years old.
You see these shows on the Discovery channel all the time.
Now for the truth.
BTW The next sound you may hear is the sound of ass cheeks puckering up as the Evolutionist's in this forum know what's coming next..... as I expose this re ed theory they love to teach the children in the classrooms.
At first glance you have no reason to doubt the scientist after all how many of you dig in the polar caps for ice? We must take their words as gospel, truth,and facts. what choice do we have?
You do have a choice now. You see in 1941 a plane was lost and 48 years later is was found , are you ready?......................
Under 263 feet of ice! which by the way kills any bull Ice core method of dating how old the earth is. So much for your ice ring lies Pat-Na!
I give you ........................
Praise God. He never gives you more than you can handle.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
-fig.gif)
