The degree humans are able to change their environment is directly related to biology. That is one reason you can consider it an evolutionary trait. Evolution - at least the way I look at it - is not limited to biological mutations in the least, but encompasses any change which then has an effect on the species.
I think you and I (or you and Stout...or SWC) are going to have a hard time debating the finer points because you hold a (fairly) radically different definition of "evolution"...different enough that basic terms hold different meanings.
Not a value judgement...just a practical observation.
I agree, I'm of the school of thought that goes beyond biological evolution.
With the increased use of the internet and children accessing it at earlier ages I'm surprised humans have not evolved and grown a 6th finger on each hand as well as a 3rd ear for cell phones.
I was thinking that with the explosion of Internet porn, the male index finger would evolve into a penis.
Or his hand a vagina.
All the same to me.
Off topic...but this is not correct. Galileo was not forced to recant a belief in heliocentricity. He was told to recant for saying that heliocentricity was a fact, rather than a theory.
Copernicus, who put forth the theory, was a Catholic priest.
Actually, the primary (though not the only) resistance to heliocentricity as even a possibility was brought by the Protestant Reformers.The Church said that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Sun was a gift from God. Galileo proposed the Sun was the center and other planets orbited it and so did the Earth. The Church charged him with heresy. He went to Rome to defend his beliefs and then later took back everything he said. Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino personally handed Galileo an admonition enjoining him to neither advocate nor teach Copernican astronomy, because it was contrary to the accepted understanding of the Holy Scriptures.Galileo made his point to the church like Cindy Sheehan is making hers. He could have been a lot more diplomatic about it, and basically was charged for pissing people off and being an asshole. Still not a high point in Church/science relations, but politicized and used as an argument by atheists for centuries.
Edit: Damn! Travis beat me to it.
Also, I just want to add how is it that Humans have different ethnicities and races etc... if we were derived from two people. Obviously it's not possible. So logically there must have been more than two humans in the begining otherwise we'd all be the same ethinicity.
Not necessarily.
Ethnicity evolved as they travelled the world.
That is what I believe anyway.
If life starts out with two people then it should be the same through out the lifeline. Two middle easterns can't produce to a black baby........
With God....anything is possible.
I'm just a simple man with simple thoughts.....and apparently a simple mind.
Well after years of research on the subject...or hour of perusing various websites, I can't remember which, I'll render this for you to debunk.
PROBABILITY OF EVOLUTION
The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge
"applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"
According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.
(My dad did write a book on the subject (unpublished) and gave me a copy of the transcript, which unfortunately I've never read. I'll have to look it over and submit his thoughts that may be of use in this thread).
Thats not about evolution, thats about the origin of life.
It renders the theory of evolution as totally implausible.
Totally implausibe means it didn't happen.
We'll chalk one up for Dr. James Coppedge and Emile Borel.
According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.
If it wasn't possible they would just say 0 chance, but they don't. It may not be likely but it isn't impossible.
I would ask you to go back and read it again but it doesn't appear you can comprehend what he says even though it is said with great clearity.
1 out of 10 to the 50th power = "will not happen" = NO CHANCE
1 out of 10 to the 119,000 power = producing 1 human cell
1 out of 10 to the 119,000 power > 1 out of 10 to the 50th power.
Comprende?<---(added at edit to infer no snippiness intended)
Last edited by jochhejaam; 08-26-2005 at 10:48 PM.
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod Ok. This is the exact kind of thing I've been waiting for from Joch. I can't sit there and toss bible verses and Psalms back and forth, but if he wants to have an honest debate on the theory of evolution, lets have at it You were saying there are holes?
Maybe you'll be able to come up with a more significant response to this;
SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.
Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments. They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.
1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.
The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier to evolutionary idealism.
There's no need to get snippy...but I suppose that's what I get for reading it over too quickly.
Sorry if you felt I was gettin snippy, should've thrown him in after the comprende -->
I'll let you examine a hole presented by none other than Darwin himself.
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." -Charles Darwin-
Last edited by jochhejaam; 08-27-2005 at 12:29 AM.
Evolution is based on mutation of an existing organism
Mutations Are Typically Harmful, Sometimes Neutral and Are Rare
Creationists and even many evolutionists immediately pointed out that all observed mutations whether laboratory induced or occurring naturally have typically been harmful, or in some cases neutral. Mutations are typically a copying error or mistake, which cause things like disease or monstrosities and put the organism at a disadvantage. In addition, mutations have been discovered to be an extremely rare event since genes have built in functions to stabilize and resist change. So in other words, mutations are rarely seen and when they do occur, they they do not bring out an advantage to any living thing. Evolutionists like to use examples of beneficial mutations in antibiotic resistance to bacteria, or in mutation of the tomato for example, though none of these types of mutations are relevant to any ideas about one kind of creature changing into another. One kind of creature changing into another via beneficial mutation has simply NEVER been shown.
For evolutionists to state that many favorable, random mutations have occurred is completely unfounded. Mutations simply cannot be the cause for evolution into new, healthy, more complex living organisms. Again, many evolutionists simply state this fact is not true, when proof is everywhere. These evolutionists are simply in denial.
"To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis.
Improving life by random mutation has the probability of zero."
Albert Szent-Gyorgi,
Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1937)
Apparently lots of holes Manny.
FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood.
Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner's hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.
"In 10 million years, a human-like species could subs ute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome — nowhere near enough to account for human evolution.
This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists."
-Walter James ReMine-
Last edited by jochhejaam; 08-27-2005 at 12:27 AM.
Science may soon prove you wrong. I once saw a fascinating do entary where descendants of a small, fairly isolated town in England had a high percentage of residents - something like 15% whereas 3% would have been normal- carried a certain gene mutation. Most of the 15% traced their ancestry back to survivors of the black plague, which had wiped out everyone else in that town. Their theory is that this gene mutation is what helped them survive and is the same gene mutation found in a rare group of people that appear to be immune to the HIV virus despite having been exposed to it repeatedly. Anyway, it's late and I'm too tired to elaborate any further (besides it's been a while since I saw this show), but here's a quick paragraph I dug up on google.
Recently, scientists were astonished to find that some individuals did not become infected with HIV, even after repeated exposure to the deadly virus.
For some reason, they were immune. A long and difficult scientific search, using blood samples from hundreds of HIV-resistant patients, finally teased out the genetic explanation. Resistant individuals had in their cells two copies of a mutation that disrupted the entryway through which HIV viruses entered white blood cells. People who inherited just one copy of the change could become infected, but their disease progressed more slowly.
With this being such a recent epidemic, where did peoples' immunity come from?
Another puzzle was the way this resistance is distributed throughout the world. In some Northern European populations it is relatively common. In Southern Europeans it is more rare, and it is almost entirely absent in Africans, Asians, and Native Americans. Logically, the mutation must have occurred in the past, acting as a defense against a different, previous epidemic caused -- like the AIDS epidemic -- by a pathogen that also targeted white blood cells.
Reading a chronological history, biologists traced the HIV-resistance gene mutation back about 700 years. That was the time at which the Black Death -- bubonic plague -- swept like a deadly scythe through Europe, killing one-third of the population. Then, as now, there were individuals who survived the lethal organism, perhaps because it could not enter their white blood cells. The areas that were hardest hit by the Black Plague match those where the gene for HIV resistance is the most common today.
At present, scientists are trying to infect such resistant cells with bubonic plague bacteria to test the hypothesis that the mutation in the CCR-5 receptor gene could have thwarted the plague in the Middle Ages, as it does HIV today. If it turns out that this mutation does protect against the plague, this coincidence will be yet another illustration of what scientists are finding over and over in the human genome: Nature's past successes often remain part of our genetic toolbox.
Okay, let me know when it does.
Thanks
Anyone seen Manny?
Are you not entertained?
-Maximus-
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
