Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 108

Thread: Evolution Question

  1. #1 Evolution Question 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    First of all it's nice to find this forum.

    Are there any Creationists in here?

    I'm sort of new to the evolution/creaion debate, but I'd like to know where I can find any proof that random mutations can be built on top of each other so that cumulative selection can work.

    also why is it that evolutionsts believe that selection has magical powers of complexity (it has formed the human brain), yet the genome of each animal does not? Why do they believe that a random change in one nuleotide will be selected for?

    Sorry if these are dumb questions.


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    First welcome to the forum.

    I think there are a couple of creationists here, but I don't recall who.

    The proof you are looking for is all around you and in a cornucopia of research work in palaeontology, biology, and the like. If you are serious about learning more then you have some heavy work ahead of you. At this stage people often recommend reading a popular work or two on evolution. Dawkins name is often put forward. You might try him. [Personally I find his style presumptive and arrogant, but I am in a distinct minority in this regard.]

    Evolutionists believe selection, acting in concert with mutations, can give rise to complexity because we see that it has given rise to complexity. The evidence is there. It is conclusive. It is vast, it is extensive beyond the capacity of a single person to encompass it all.

    Evolution is a fact. The modern synthesis, or neo-Darwinian evolution, is a solid theory. In science, you do not get any firmer than a theory. The theory is the ultimate level of scientific thought. A theory as thoroughly validated as evolution has been, is as solid as you can get.
    What remains to be determined are someof the detailed mechanisms by which change occurs at the genetic level; and better delineation of the inter-relationships between organisms.


     

  4. #3  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    also the multi-resistent bacterias are a obvius proof, they first get immune to one AB then a second, a third and so on.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    Well, I'm the type that needs proof.

    I don't like the bacteria example because I like to deal with real life. (besides, I'm not sure those would qualify as random mutations. Is there any proof that a random mutation has been shown to be able to build up over eons of time? I mean there is a severe lack of intermediate fossils...when there should be millions. Does this not strike one as being strange since evolution is a fact?

    My other question is this. Why is it that science does not test individual animals? Where are the controlled experiments? I mean my hypothesis is that individual animals evolve, not populations. However, there are no such experiments to be found on the web with individual animals. For instance....let's take dogs.....all that would have to be done is to take the same type of dog (several of them) to different locations in the world (one to Alaska, one to the Outback) and see what happens to their phenotypes over the next years. (not allowing them to interbreed with any other animals in the region)

    Also check to see what happens to their future offspring. Does their hair change color? Does their body change? Do they get bigger, smaller, heavier, lighter, longer limbs? Where are all these tests? I have found none. And to me, if it shown that animals quickly "evolve" in such a way, it would disprove the theory of evolution. You could do this experiment with fish, frogs, birds, and lots of other animals/bugs. So where are all these experiments?
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Well, I'm the type that needs proof.
    me to

    I don't like the bacteria example because I like to deal with real life. (besides, I'm not sure those would qualify as random mutations. Is there any proof that a random mutation has been shown to be able to build up over eons of time? I mean there is a severe lack of intermediate fossils...when there should be millions. Does this not strike one as being strange since evolution is a fact?
    what can have more to do with real life? dont you ever get sick?
    and yes it is random, a bacteria isnt intelligent to choose its mutations.
    lack? there is really no lack becuase the chance for a fossile bieng created is small. So you wont have like 1 generation, then the next generation and so on to see its changes, its more like mnaybe 1 generation, then the 10th generation, in that scale you obviusly see the differens. The so called "lack of fossile" is just a lame argument from creationists who dont understand its a little chance for a fossile to be created, like for all humans living today, its maybne 1 that becomes a fossile taht lasts millions of years

    My other question is this. Why is it that science does not test individual animals? Where are the controlled experiments? I mean my hypothesis is that individual animals evolve, not populations. However, there are no such experiments to be found on the web with individual animals. For instance....let's take dogs.....all that would have to be done is to take the same type of dog (several of them) to different locations in the world (one to Alaska, one to the Outback) and see what happens to their phenotypes over the next years. (not allowing them to interbreed with any other animals in the region)
    becuase evolution is irrelevant on individual level, you need a population. and here we have had controlled experiments of some sorts, they had 2 different fly types that could breed with each other (they are the same species then) 50 years later they couldnt, wich mean they have become different species. the msot controlled one is bacterias that accumulate huge amount of DNA over generations, if they have like a 20min/gen then if we assume us as higher biengs have a portion if its ability then you can scale it up to our size. But also evolution have been induced artificialy by humans since the day we began using crops and animals, choosing those who please our needs to breed, therefor changing their allel frequens

    Also check to see what happens to their future offspring. Does their hair change color? Does their body change? Do they get bigger, smaller, heavier, lighter, longer limbs? Where are all these tests? I have found none. And to me, if it shown that animals quickly "evolve" in such a way, it would disprove the theory of evolution. You could do this experiment with fish, frogs, birds, and lots of other animals/bugs. So where are all these experiments?
    this kind of experiements take long time to do, only flies took 50 years, a dog would take maybe 200 years before any significan differens arise. But they change a bit physical by their enviorment, becuase DNA tells the individuals maximum, the enviorment tells how close to that max it gets. Like if we take a rain forest tree, it reaches its max in a rain forest, assuming, but in a dessert it might not reach even to my ankles even with help.

    But dna tests of animals shows simularities that is a proof of a common ancestor.

    if you want a test take some realistic ones that is possible to use. But there is proof for evolution and its a fact
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    I especially agree with this part of Zelos's post

    The so called "lack of fossile" is just a lame argument from creationists who dont understand
    Fossils are not a requirement for evolution - the type of fossils we find are a prediction OF evolution and fossils always fit into the nested heirarchy predicted by evolution. Fossils are a major validation of the ToE and it's simply amazing that creationists continue to pretend otherwise.
    The "lack of transitionals" argument is pretty weak as well - when you consider the rarity of fossil formation and look at how complete a lot of evolutionary lines really ARE in the fossil record, it strikes me as more complete than I'd expect especially for terrestrial organisms.
    Check out talkorigins for a brief response to that...and if that isn't enough there are certainly more detailed discussions out there for you.

    And what's wrong with using bacteria? They are perfect for showing mutation and evolution for a number of reasons. They don't live long, you can have large sample sizes, they reproduce asexually - they're great. Experiments with dogs as you suggest take a LOT longer, have a LOT less organisms involved (and hence less mutations), and involve the combination of genes from TWO different organisms. It's not even close to a good choice for experiments of that nature.
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    Well, first of all i just don't buy that the bacteria thing is random. For one thing, if the test is done a thousand times, the same result will certainly appear every time. What's random about that? Also, in order for the test to TRULY be random, the bacteria would have to be in a flask all by itself -- and THEN mutate. You have any experiments that show that? Remember, in order for a mutation to qualify as random, it needs to be independent of the environment and not to the benefit of the organism -- instead the mutation should be completely and totally random, and the "selected". This is why I don't like the bacteria thing.

    Besides, they could do the same thing on animals, like I mentioned. Dogs, actually can be bred every 2 or 3 years...it certainly wouldn't take 200 years to carry out an experiment like I suggested. But Instead of dogs, how about bugs? Lizards? Birds? They have a short lifespans. Stick one in the cold and one heat and see what happens. What happens to their offspring? I bet it would be the same exact result every time. Would you call that random? i wouldn't. I'd call nonrandom. Do you guys believe in nonrandom mutations or do they all have to be random. Also do you believe that Darwin's finches and the peppered moths evoved via RM + NS?
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,672
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    Well, first of all i just don't buy that the bacteria thing is random.
    It is random..

    BUT sometimes the question already offers a part of the answer. I think it is very easy to generate immunity for things. That if the bacteria's DNA is unprotected. Some bacteria have hugely protected DNA (read: not infective) and haven't changed a bit in millions of years.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    Ok....I'm not going to debate bacteria because I'm not a chemist, however it seems to me that the bacteria actually loses information and becomes less specific when it mutates -- which would not qualify for the type of mutation you need. Also, Toe requires long series of steps for cumulative selection -- and these steps have to be passed on through breeding....this is none of that. This is a short series of steps that invoves no sexual reproduction. So let's keep it to animals.

    The fact is you cannot prove random mutations build up through animals over time. You also cannot even prove natural selection. And the reason I say you cannot prove natural selection is because -- once again -- there are no controlled experiments to TEST it! How can this be? How can the theory that has dominated science for the past century rely on two concepts that cannot/ will not be tested? What is this science?...or Sesame Street? Are we all just supposed to smile and use our imaginations? Well I don't use my imagination. I also don't take people's word for things when it comes to something as important as this. I base my conclusions on hard facts.

    And the fact is, evolutionists are afraid to test individual animals, they're also afraid to test natural selection. And about the only thing they can fall back on is genetics and bacterial resistence -- neither of which cannot be comprehended by the general public.
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    lackadaisical
    your name has been very well chosen. You keep saying you have seen no proof for various things. It is clear that you have not bothered looking.
    Your suggestions for experiments show you have such a grossly inaccurate understanding of evolution that debating you is probably pointless.
    I leave it to others with more patience to continue the discussion with you. I have zero confidence they will sway your opinion by the width of a single genome, but their counterarguments might be of use to a casual and less informed reader.
    However, that discussion will take place within the pseudoscience forum, where any discussion challenging something as well founded as evolution and evolutionary theory has its natural home.
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    You say evolution is well-founded...but well-founded on what? I'd love to talk hard scientific facts with you here.

    Do you agree that every animal on this earth is individually adaptive? Do you believe that mammals can change fur/skin color rapidly to accommodate themselves? Do you believe that fish can change colors to match their environment? Do you believe that lizards/fish can grow/shrink depending on their environment? Do you believe that bugs can all change colors on demand? Do you believe that brown bears can quickly turn into grizzly bears just by migrating north?

    These guys call this bear a hybrid....but knowing that every animal on earth is individually adaptive, I'm not so sure....

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12738644/from/RSS/

    But Roger Kuptana, a guide from Canada’s Sachs Harbor was the first to suspect it had actually happened when he proposed that a strange-looking bear shot last month by an American sports hunter might be half polar bear, half grizzly

    Officials seized the creature after noticing its white fur was scattered with brown patches and that it had the long claws and humped back of a grizzly. Now a DNA test has confirmed that it is indeed a hybrid — possibly the first documented in the wild.

    We've known it's possible, but actually most of us never thought it would happen," said Ian Stirling, a polar bear biologist with the Canadian Wildlife Service in Edmonton.


    Uhhh...why don't they take some brown bears out to where it's cold and see if they turn white and start hunting seals!!! Is science hiding something from us?
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    68
    Evolution is a personal intrerst of mine...

    lets start from the top:

    --the dog/lizard/bird evolution test in two different environments would be both conclusive and non-conclusive depending on who you ask. An evolutionist would say that the change in how common an allele (such as, the one for thick fur in dogs) is would consitute evolution while a creationist would say that, as no significant new genetic information was synthesized the results were non-conclusive. Due to natural selection, however (provided that the experiments are done in the natural conditions of the area or in very different, human-controlled settings), allele frequencies /would/ change resulting in colder-area dogs having more fat storage, thicker fur, etc. A test in which the two stocks would differentiate into different species, however, would take much, much longer (a fruit flie's generation can be as short as 20 days while a dog's generation can only be rushed to about 750 days if you rush everything)...

    --There have been tests on specific bacterial colonies with different levels of resistance to a bacteria to determine the form of mutation which allows that given level of resistance. I did a similar lab in a class where we tested an E. coli stock (not exposed to the antibiotic previously) by plating it on an agar plate with the antibiotic. We took a small, medium, and large colony and plated each of those onto 5 different plates: control (all grew), 100 ug/ml (all grew), 200 ug/ml (all grew, small was weak), 400 ug/ml (int and large grew, small didn't), and 800 ug/ml (large grew normally, int was weak, small didn't grow)...

    I personally tested my large colony and found that a single-nucleotide mutation caused total resistance to the anti-biotic (the nucleotide changed the amino acid in the RNA-polymerase which the anti-biotic affected. The anti-biotic could no longer bind and do its work). Natural selection/Evolution calls for this to happen only once (although it may happen more times, but at least one individual is necessary), then when the antibiotic comes about, all the other non-resistant siblings of the resistant bacteria are killed, but the resistant one, no longer having to compete with others of its species, fluorishes to the point where it soon reaches the former population level.

    --lack of proof does not nullify a theory. Instead, find proof against evolution.

    --bacteria doesn't mutate randomly, but under stressful conditions the RNA-polymerase (the molecule which translates the DNA into RNA which is then translated into the protein to do the work to determine all characteristics of teh cell) will copy more messily (look up the SOS reaction). Also, the protein which synthesizes the new strand of DNA in the daughter cell is more sloppy. This results in more mutations. Its still hit-and-miss, but there are more trys (so more hits) with that response.

    --the same result will appear in tests because it is the same stock from the same single ancestor, not because all bacteria have the same mutation. A resistant strain of bacteria can spread across the globe in a matter of months, years at most.

    --there is evidence. Speciation has been observed both in the lab (with two fruit fly stocks, as mentioned below) and in nature (a specific example with four different types of mice seperated by the rockies in campell biology edition 5 stands out...I'll find the exact page if I have time later). We have detailed trees which show many different species and how minor changes have changed giant reptiles to tiny birds. We also have a tree for humans (of which, Lucy is a very well known individual).

    There is certainly evidence out there...just look.

    -Ajain
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    68
    and science isn't hiding anything from us. The grizzly bears wouldn't know how to hunt in a colder climate in the first place. More likely than not, the cold-shift would cause them to hibernate and, unless they were put into a warmer environment, never come out (...I think hibernation is dependant on temperature and not photoperiod, but correct me if I'm wrong up there)...

    additionally, grizzly's wouldn't have the skills needed /from the beginning/ in their population /at all/ meaning that /all/ individuals would die before significant reproduction could occur. If there was even a rare genotype which would directly allow grizzly's to have some sort of minimal survival in the extreme cold where polar bears live, then you could do such a test and you would have results in a few generations (the appearence of the rare survival allele would be expressed much more in the population because those who didn't have it would die off and not spread their non-survival allele) but (correct me if this is wrong), grizzly's have a generation of at least 10 years...

    if you wanna wait that long then be my guest. I would be interested in seeing the results, but I would bank that the entire population wouldn't last long at all.

    -Ajain
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    lackadaisical is a creationist, its obvius

    How can be bhe sure galaxies look like they do? we ahvent simulated billions of stars under controlled experiemnts to see if they evolve into galaxies

    Science is not all about controlled testing, you can use observations aswell. Certain parts of science is based on experiments, others are on observatoins.

    didnt you read what i said? they have observed how one species of flies, became 2 specieses

    if bacteria aint random nothing is. Its random, complete random. Why we get all the same results is becuase the enviorment demands the same thing over and over again.

    Put a bear on the pole? yeah sure it will turn into a polar bear, in a few hundread tousand years

    quickly turn into grizzly
    define quikly, a human life span, HELL NO
    over hundreds of tousands of years, maybe. But it takes time
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    Why is this in the Pseudo-science section? Are scientists/biologists in here afraid to debate me about biology?
    ---------------------------------------

    Well you guys seem so convinced that it would take thousands of years for a brown bear to turn into a grizzly bear.....but what do you think about this?

    http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/zoo00082.htm

    by the way...I'm sure you know this but many mammals in the artic are able to quickly morph their fur color seasonally...ie foxes. But bears don't have this ability to morph quickly evidently -- however given enough time (years in a different environment), I'm suggesting it could happen. Do you disagree with me that bears can morph their coat color farily rapidly? Look at the cub's fur in this photo taken at a zoo....compare with mother's fur.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...iplets_big.jpg


    And if you read that article that I linked earlier you will see that these so-called hybrids actually do hunt seals....and there are, evidently, many of these types of "crossbreeds" up there in Alaska -- since hunters have evidently taken notice of them. (by the way, if there were crossbreeds roaming around, then there would HAVE to be full-fledged brown grizzly bears roaming around on the snow/ice as well....which seems doubtful....and would a grizzly bear mother teach her cubs how to hunt seals?-- that's what's happening according to the article)

    The fact is, I am extrememly skeptical because there are simply no tests on any animals to see what happens upon an environmental change. PERIOD. And the fact is, if it shown that brown bears, for instance can change into polar bears within just a few generations it would completely dismantle Toe. (which I think is the reason for lack of experiments.)

    And I'm not able to debate bacteria....I don't have a chemistry degree, sorry. but the fact is that the bacteria is losing information when it mutates. Can you refute this?

    I also have a hypothesis that peppered moths did not need natural selection to go through the process of morphing color change....I suggest they all do so as quickly as individuals of the population. As you know the moths were supposed "proof" of the power of selection. Does anyone in here suggest that it NS WAS necessary? Do you suggest that moths are not individually adaptive by color? ( I do have links to back myself up)

    Thanks for the good dialog.
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    Well you guys seem so convinced that it would take thousands of years for a brown bear to turn into a grizzly bear.
    Don't try debating tricks here. We have several posters who can run rings around you in that department should they so choose.
    One person has made a throwaway statement that it would take a few hundred thousand years .
    That is not the same thing at all as "all us guys being convinced it would take thousands of years".
    I am not aware of how seprate grizzly bears are from polar bears genetically. Clearly they are both bears and possess many common features, which includes a common genetic heritage up until, in geological terms, very recently.
    I would not be at all surprised to learn that where their ranges overlap, or are contiguous, that there would be occasional interbreeding.
    That readily explains your links on bears. I'm really not sure what you are trying to prove with them anyway, other than your lack of understanding of evolution. Trust me on this: you had me convinced at quite an early stage.
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    The fact is, I am extrememly skeptical because there are simply no tests on any animals to see what happens upon an environmental change. PERIOD. And the fact is, if it shown that brown bears, for instance can change into polar bears within just a few generations it would completely dismantle Toe..
    Again, utter and complete crap. Do you have a reservoir you drag this thoughtless material from?
    What it would do would be to demonstrate a closer genetic relationship between the two species than is currently understood to be the case. It would upset the applecart of ursine studies, but dismantle the Theory of Evolution. Get real.
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    Why is this in the Pseudo-science section? Are scientists/biologists in here afraid to debate me about biology?
    It is in the pseudoscience section for this very simple reason:
    Anyone who fails to understand the certainty of evolution, and the quality and quantity of the evidence for modern sysnthesis, or neo-Darwinism, does not deserve to be accorded a platform in the main forums.
    Feel free to appeal to the other moderators to have it moved. I, however, have no intention for tolerating the criminal idiocy that is creationism to any greater extent than giving you space to spout your nonsense in pseudo science.
    Please do not take these comments as being a personal attack. I am sure you are a very nice person, admired by your friends, loved by your family, respected by your community. This is good, because you will get none of those things from me as long as you promote such anti-scientific, mindless dross as lies at the heart of creationism.
    The debate can and is proceeding, just don't expect your views to be given a veneer of respect by leaving that debate within the main forums.
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    firrst, okery hundreds of tousands of years maybe were to long, sorry

    I'm sure you know this but many mammals in the artic are able to quickly morph their fur color seasonally...
    becuase they either need that ability or did in previus forms need this ability but doesnt need it anymore but loses nothing having it anyway.

    but the fact is that the bacteria is losing information when it mutates. Can you refute this?
    i wonder why we stand here, when they are our ancestors and lose information when they mutate, oh wait, they done. Some information is lost, others omdefied, others added and so on. here is a few exemples of waht can happen
    AATTCG -> AACTCG (change)
    AATTCG -> ATTCG (delete)
    AATTCG -> AGATTCG (add)
    depending on the need some of those are more common, for bacterias it isnt worth having a lot DNA so they have alot of delete until what they need is left. While eukaryote cells, like our own, are in a more protected enviorment where add can be more common and therefor accumilate alot mroe DNA than bacterias can. Of course both types can do both things.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    68
    The animals whose color changes in the artic is because the cells in the hair follicle which manufacture the hair put in a different pigment during the summer than during the winter. When there is snow on the ground, being pristine white is a giant advantage, but when tundra plants are blooming during the summer, being white would mean a quick and painful death. This is simply proof of adaptation to fit an environment. This change is probably dictated by photoperiod. The day's length greatly varies when you get farther north or south between winter and summer. By the brain "timing" each day's length, it can tell if the environment is really cold or really hot by telling the season...many flowers use this.

    Saying it could happen is completely logical. Albino's are caused by a genetic fluke, so if the albino grizzlys lived to reproduce (provided there weren't other problems...), then the bear's colors could change. There is no reason for the bear's colors to change in the first place, however, as there are very few natural predators to bears which they would need to hide from (its a bold hunter who would take a pot shot at a half-starved bear in the artic).

    Many young animals have different colored fur just because thats how life is. Baby teeth in a human are whiter than adult teeth. Does this mean that humans are somehow evolving rapidly?! Baby ducks have softer, lighter feathers.

    And the hybrids could hunt seals, no doubt. It depends on which side raised them and, possibly, if they lucked out and had the correct genetics to have all the hardware (and, if you're a "nature" instead of "nurture" person, software) to hunt seals. Indeed, however, for each individual that got the "seal hunting" soft-/hard-ware, there is one that didn't. or, if the seal-hunting soft-/hard-ware were dominant, for each 3 there is 1 that didn't.

    And animals move around. Most animals breed during the warmer spring time, so it is possible that a grizzly came a bit north and a polar bear came a bit south and they met. I still deny that a grizzly could spend the entire year in a tundra (with no deciduous forest or grassland within reasonable distance).

    the bacteria wasn't losing information in the least bit. When I saw my E. coli strain's DNA (it was sequenced then the amino acid sequence was made and modeled in 3D with the anti-biotic shown), the single nucleotide that changed was, I believe, adenine to guanine. That is hardly the loss of information! that is substitution!

    And who says that loss of information isn't evolution? It is amazing luck to some that they have lost the gene for a certain receptor (whose name escapes me) which allows the AIDS virus to attach to white blood cells. They are immune to AIDS due to the loss of information. This is a very beneficial mutation indeed despite the fact that it required the loss of information. There are often systems to back up systems to back up systems meaning that even if one receptor or pathway is lost, another is still in place to get the job done.

    And you seem to have the illusion that evolution can happen to an individual. Evolution doesn't happen to an individual. The peppered moths alive when soot began building up didn't change themselves. The white ones were eaten by birds as the soot built and they were exposed from their hiding places on white objects (Such as birtch trees). The "peppered" ones, however, which had survived as a minority previously, lived to an age where htey could reproduce. Indeed, no new information was added and no old information was lost. The frequency of the "peppered" allele just rose. This is evolution, however, as the entire species was affected.

    Hope that makes evolution more clear to you!

    -Ajain
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Excellent post Ajain. It should certainly have made things clearer to those with limited knowledge of evolution and an open mind. Unfortunately I don't think it will have much of an effect on lackadaisical.
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    i agree with everything Ophiolite said
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajain
    The animals whose color changes in the artic is because the cells in the hair follicle which manufacture the hair put in a different pigment during the summer than during the winter. When there is snow on the ground, being pristine white is a giant advantage, but when tundra plants are blooming during the summer, being white would mean a quick and painful death. This is simply proof of adaptation to fit an environment. This change is probably dictated by photoperiod. The day's length greatly varies when you get farther north or south between winter and summer. By the brain "timing" each day's length, it can tell if the environment is really cold or really hot by telling the season...many flowers use this.

    Saying it could happen is completely logical. Albino's are caused by a genetic fluke, so if the albino grizzlys lived to reproduce (provided there weren't other problems...), then the bear's colors could change. There is no reason for the bear's colors to change in the first place, however, as there are very few natural predators to bears which they would need to hide from (its a bold hunter who would take a pot shot at a half-starved bear in the artic).

    Many young animals have different colored fur just because thats how life is. Baby teeth in a human are whiter than adult teeth. Does this mean that humans are somehow evolving rapidly?! Baby ducks have softer, lighter feathers.

    And the hybrids could hunt seals, no doubt. It depends on which side raised them and, possibly, if they lucked out and had the correct genetics to have all the hardware (and, if you're a "nature" instead of "nurture" person, software) to hunt seals. Indeed, however, for each individual that got the "seal hunting" soft-/hard-ware, there is one that didn't. or, if the seal-hunting soft-/hard-ware were dominant, for each 3 there is 1 that didn't.

    And animals move around. Most animals breed during the warmer spring time, so it is possible that a grizzly came a bit north and a polar bear came a bit south and they met. I still deny that a grizzly could spend the entire year in a tundra (with no deciduous forest or grassland within reasonable distance).

    the bacteria wasn't losing information in the least bit. When I saw my E. coli strain's DNA (it was sequenced then the amino acid sequence was made and modeled in 3D with the anti-biotic shown), the single nucleotide that changed was, I believe, adenine to guanine. That is hardly the loss of information! that is substitution!

    And who says that loss of information isn't evolution? It is amazing luck to some that they have lost the gene for a certain receptor (whose name escapes me) which allows the AIDS virus to attach to white blood cells. They are immune to AIDS due to the loss of information. This is a very beneficial mutation indeed despite the fact that it required the loss of information. There are often systems to back up systems to back up systems meaning that even if one receptor or pathway is lost, another is still in place to get the job done.

    And you seem to have the illusion that evolution can happen to an individual. Evolution doesn't happen to an individual. The peppered moths alive when soot began building up didn't change themselves. The white ones were eaten by birds as the soot built and they were exposed from their hiding places on white objects (Such as birtch trees). The "peppered" ones, however, which had survived as a minority previously, lived to an age where htey could reproduce. Indeed, no new information was added and no old information was lost. The frequency of the "peppered" allele just rose. This is evolution, however, as the entire species was affected.

    Hope that makes evolution more clear to you!

    -Ajain
    I appreciate your reply...I actually didn't see this page...so sorry it took so long to respond...

    So let's get this straight.....do you believe (yes or no) that bears can change coat colors quickly?(within a few years, maybe?)...how about arctic foxes and other animals up north? Do you believe that actic foxes could be white in the winter and brown in the summer? Do you believe that it could possibly take longer for the grizzly bear to change white because he is LARGER and larger animals take longer to adjust?

    Do you also believe that fish and lizards and humans and mice and every other animal may have similar abilities? In otherwords, has individual adaptation evolved? Have we all evolved the intelligence to decipher external conditions from within?

    As far as the peppered moth goes...I have two hypothesis...

    1) individual moths are adaptive colorwise to background colors

    2) individual moths emerge from the egg pre-adapted.

    http://www.sicb.org/meetings/2003/sy...lasticity.php3

    ----------------------------------------
    http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0313021.htm

    Monteiro noted that the differences in wing patterns differentiate one species of butterfly from another and are used by males and females to determine with which individuals to mate.

    They also have been shown to serve an adaptive purpose, as demonstrated by numerous studies focusing on seasonal changes in wing coloration of individuals in a species.

    For instance, Monteiro said, the darker wing patterns that show up in butterflies that emerge in the spring serve to warm up the butterfly faster, whereas butterflies that emerge in the summer have lighter colors.

    "Also, many butterflies that emerge in the wet season in the tropics have large, conspicuous marks on their wings that deflect the attacks of predators while the butterflies are actively finding mates and laying eggs, while the dry-season cohorts are very cryptic, trying to blend in with their environment and not attract any attention from predators until the rains arrive again," she said.

    -----------------------------------------------------

    The fact is, either way this would put a big hurt on neo-darwinims because this would prove that genotypes do not dictate the phenotype. Not only that but it would prove that individuals evolve according to their own environment, and that the need for populational adaptation over thousands of years would be eliminated.

    i am suggesting that every creature is not only adaptive in color, shape, size etc....but also every creature emerges from the womb/egg pre-adapted by the same seemingly miraculous way that the butterflys did in these links.

    And the fact is, neo-darwinism does not have a mechanism for this. Period.....as proven here:

    The authors note that what's not known about wing patterns in butterflies are the genetic mechanisms that result in the great variety of patterns that exist and an understanding of how those mechanisms have evolved through time.
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    So let's get this straight.....do you believe (yes or no) that bears can change coat colors quickly?(within a few years, maybe?)...how about arctic foxes and other animals up north? Do you believe that actic foxes could be white in the winter and brown in the summer? Do you believe that it could possibly take longer for the grizzly bear to change white because he is LARGER and larger animals take longer to adjust?
    what a bunch of stupid questions.

    The fact is, either way this would put a big hurt on neo-darwinims because this would prove that genotypes do not dictate the phenotype. Not only that but it would prove that individuals evolve according to their own environment, and that the need for populational adaptation over thousands of years would be eliminated.
    didnt you listen to me earlier? The genes tells what they can do, not what they will do (well, they do but not all genes are active all the time). Then the enviorment helps deciding what genome that is expressed. My genes say i shall be white in skin color, but my genes also say like "undder exposure to UV-light of greater proportions then increase pigment in skin for protection" , of course in DNA language. But i dont get this brown color until i am exposed to UV. My genes say 2 things, i shall have brown, or white. depending on conditions either one is more produced and active.

    a individual cant adept to a eniorment beyond what its genetic code allows it. as darwin said "It is not the strongest one that survives, but the one most adepteble to changes". thats what he said and thats how it is. Our genetic code allows changes in our phenotype to increase our level of survival. what survives best? a fox that never changes coat, or a fox that can change it to partly white? the partly white one will therefor increase in numbder until the genome allows *t to become complete white in periods.

    do you get it now?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    So let's get this straight.....do you believe (yes or no) that bears can change coat colors quickly?(within a few years, maybe?)...
    I believe it would be entirely possible that they may be able to do it from season to season. As Zelos pointed out this ability is found in a wide variety of mammal and bird species. I do not know if the ability exists in bears. If it does, I should not be surprised. If it does not, I should not be surprised. The ability would be dependent upon the genetic make up of the bears. Natural selection acting upon the chance and inherited genetic character within a particular environment would have determined which of these alternatives applied. What, if anything do you consider amazing in that?
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    Do you believe that actic foxes could be white in the winter and brown in the summer?
    Of course I believe this, because it has been repeatedly observed and objectively reported. Again, as Zelos has pointed out, this is a simple expression of genetic character and is evidence for evolution, not evidence against it.
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    Do you believe that it could possibly take longer for the grizzly bear to change white because he is LARGER and larger animals take longer to adjust?
    No. That sounds like nonsense. Arctic hares are smaller than arctic foxes by am not aware of any evidence that their coat change takes a different lenght of time. The change effects individual hairs, as individuals. It hardly matters how many hairs are present. I am inclined to agree with Zelos, that was a really unthinking suggestion.
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    Do you also believe that fish and lizards and humans and mice and every other animal may have similar abilities?
    I know - not just believe - that creatures can adapt their behaviour and to some extent their physiology to suit circumstances. However such adaptation is within the bounds determined by their genes. I do not recall which athlete gave the following answer to the question, "What is the most important thing in becoming an Olympic Champion?" - Answer: "Choosing the right parents."

    If I train then I shall be able to run faster and jump higher. But no amount of training will enable me to run faster or jump higher than anyone else on the planet. I have not inherited the physiology for that.
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    In otherwords, has individual adaptation evolved? Have we all evolved the intelligence to decipher external conditions from within?
    This strikes me as singularily ill informed. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. If I pick up a hot coal from a fire I shall very rapidly decipher the external conditions and drop the coal. Intelligence will come into play if I avoid picking up such coals in future. It will be interesting to see if the same thing happens with your weak arguments.
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    As far as the peppered moth goes...I have two hypothesis...
    1) individual moths are adaptive colorwise to background colors
    2) individual moths emerge from the egg pre-adapted.
    Neither of which do you have any evidence for.
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    The fact is, either way this would put a big hurt on neo-darwinims because this would prove that genotypes do not dictate the phenotype. Not only that but it would prove that individuals evolve according to their own environment, and that the need for populational adaptation over thousands of years would be eliminated.
    Crap. You are either deliberately misunderstanding the science through an inherent intellectual dishonesty, or engaging in areas well beyond your expertise. The first is rude, the second is unwise.
    Of course many phenotypical variations can emerge from the same genotype, because, as previoulsy noted, the environments in which a particular genotype is expressed are themselves varied. This is not news. This is not a dent in neo-Darwinism. This is wholly compatible with neo-Darwinism. It is embraced by neo-Darwinism. It is not an issue. Learn to deal with that.
    Lamarck, regrettably, is dead. His poor stepchild, epigenetics, may yet, with proper nurturing, grow into a healthy adult. That will simply give us a further adjustment of neo-Darwinism to account with even greater precision for the details of evolutionary mechanism, it will not overturn the whole applecart as you appear to wish to do.
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    Ok....so evidently we're all on the same page.

    See, I was under the impression that darwinists did not acknowledge that the environment could cause a phenotypic change. They certainly don't admit that the evironment can cause a mutation....and as far as I know mutations are the beginning and the end of physiological change under the darwin umbrella....so something's up........If I'm wrong about this then please tell me know what the recognized biolgocial mechanism for change is when individual animals adapt to their environment if it is not RM + NS. Also how does this mechanism fit into the fossil record.

    I have always heard that with cumulative selection, one gene gets piled on top of another over many generations to form traits. In otherwords, the same mechanism for microevolution is the same mechanism for macroevolution -- just more time is involved. Do you believe this? Or do you go along with this guy:

    http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/20...selection.html

    In particular, while it is true that any given mutation is random (as far as we can tell), a series of mutations which are then preserved as the result of natural selection aren't really random at all…

    However, subsequent field and laboratory investigations into the genetic and developmental control of such variable traits have shown the multiple allele/continuous variation model upon which the "modern synthesis" was based is, in fact, not the way most traits apparently evolve…

    This process, called genetic accommodation [2], is part of the new science of evo-devo, which renders much of the classical "evolutionary synthesis" obsolete…


    Do you believe that the modern synthesis is OBSOLETE like this guys does and like I do??????

    The fact is, if you say that genes are merely EXPRESSING different traits, then you have to be able to tell me how MONKEY traits are expressed differently than HUMAN traits....because like you say.....it's all in the way genes are expressed.

    The fact is you cannot have it both ways.....you cannot say that traits are piled on top of each other to make an organism, and then also say that gene expression creates specific traits. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

    So tell me exactly how a set of monkey genes cumulated over time without RANDOM mutations. (Remember this guy's quote about random mutations not being the way things evidently evolve.)

    The fact is, evolutionists are moving the goalposts again.....which, like he says, makes the modern synthesis obsolete...and every biology book in schools obsolete. And you have to remember that this first guy is an evolutionist and has woven a bunch rhetoric around these statements that put Toe in the cellar -- but the fact is, all he's trying to do is get around individual adpatations -- it's such a simple concept, yet you guys just won't let yourselves admit it.

    By the way, do you believe that reindeers can change color due to environmental changes if bears can't? Listen to what this cute little girl says. Do you disagree? Why should bears be different?

    http://www.ncusd203.org/washington/Whirl%20December%20'03/p16%20Reindeer.pdf#search='reindeer%20coat%20color '

    By the way, those butterflys emerging from the eggs did not do so via a lamarckian principle......in fact...the author(s) were stumped as to how this happens. I say this phenomenon probably happens everywhere...in all lifeforms

    thanks for the good dialog...have a nice day.
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    They certainly don't admit that the evironment can cause a mutation.
    wrong, what else would exept the normal errors? But a mutation in one cell dont cause the individ to change

    I have always heard that with cumulative selection, one gene gets piled on top of another over many generations to form traits. In otherwords, the same mechanism for microevolution is the same mechanism for macroevolution
    of course it is

    In particular, while it is true that any given mutation is random (as far as we can tell), a series of mutations which are then preserved as the result of natural selection aren't really random at all…
    the mutatoin is random, the selection isnt

    So tell me exactly how a set of monkey genes cumulated over time without RANDOM mutations. (Remember this guy's quote about random mutations not being the way things evidently evolve.)
    simple, random mutations happen, if it isnt good its "quikly" "erased" from the population while good genes are saved in the population becuase they are good enough to stay

    individual adpatations
    "its not the strongest that survives, but the one most adepteble to changes that survives"
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    See, I was under the impression that darwinists did not acknowledge that the environment could cause a phenotypic change.
    And this is what I mean when I state, as an objective fact, not as a personal slur, that you are ignorant. Here, from the pages of wikipedia, in the article on phenotype:
    The interaction between genotype and phenotype has often been described using a simple equation:
    genotype + environment → phenotype

    A slightly more nuanced version of the equation is:
    genotype + environment + random-variation → phenotype


    This is just basic biology 101. Don't you feel it is presumptuous to take an adversarial position to evolution when you don't even understand the basics.
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    They certainly don't admit that the environment can cause a mutation....
    Again: ignorance. Unabashed ignorance. I am returning to wikipedia again - not because it is the ultimate authority, but because it is fairly reliable, accessible and usually cogent. You would do yourself no harm by spending a week, a month, or a year studying the contents relating to evolution. Here is an extract from the article on mutation:
    Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to radiation, chemicals (mutagens), or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during processes such as meiosis or hypermutation.

    If radiation, chemicals and viruses are not part of the environment, I should like to know what is.
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    and as far as I know mutations are the beginning and the end of physiological change under the darwin umbrella. If I'm wrong about this then please tell me know(sic) what the biolgocial mechanism for change is when individual animals adapt to their environment.
    We have already established that you do not know very far. One fundamental that you seem to be having major difficulties with is distinguishing between the individual and the species.
    The mechanisms by which the individual undergoes physiological development is, as noted above, a combination of genotype, environmental influence and chance.
    The species undergoes a change in potential physiological development through, primarily, natural selection, and to a lesser extent genetic drift, acting upon genotypes that have been changed by mutation, genetic recombination or gene flow.
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    I have always heard that with cumulative selection, one gene gets piled on top of another over many generations to form traits. In otherwords, the same mechanism for microevolution is the same mechanism for macroevolution -- just more time is involved. Do you believe this?
    Yes, I believe this. I see no reason not to believe it, and many reasons to believe. When we get down to the detail I do not claim, as some may, that there is a bland uniformity to the character of evolution throughout time. Nor, do I demand that this is not the case.
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    Do you believe that the modern synthesis is OBSOLETE like this guys does and like I do??????
    Lackadaisical, science is for ever re-evaluating and refining. The changes the modern synthesis is undergoing are, in my view, adaptations of that synthesis. There are those, often with a vested interest in appearing radical, who would claim – with a dramatic flourish – that the modern synthesis has, or is about to be, overthrown. [quote=lackadaisical]omfit you to know that these individuals are still very much Darwinists and firm believers in the Theory of Evolution – they just think they have a better version of that theory.
    In case you hadn’t noticed the above distinctions are pretty much matters of academic disagreement and not matters of substance.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    This process, called genetic accommodation [2], is part of the new science of evo-devo, which renders much of the classical "evolutionary synthesis" obsolete…[/i]
    Well, the practitioners of evo-devo (evolutionary developmental biology) like to think it is new. As a student of Professor T.N.George, then the global expert on the Carboniferous, I was continually exhorted to remember Haeckel’s “Ontogeny repeats Phylogeny” and exposed to George’s search for a ‘rate gene’, based upon his life long investigation of Carboniferous brachiopods. It is revitalised, and is a crucial perspective for advancing our understanding of evolution, but evo-devo is no new, and it does not render the modern synthethis obsolete.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    The fact is, if you say that genes are merely EXPRESSING different traits, then you have to be able to tell me how MONKEY traits are expressed differently than HUMAN traits....because like you say.....it's all in the way genes are expressed..
    They aren’t expressed any differently. There genes are different, so their traits are different.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    The fact is you cannot have it both ways.....you cannot say that traits are piled on top of each other to make an organism, and then also say that gene expression creates specific traits. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
    Well, yes I can have it both ways. Bricks and girders and cement and timber are ‘piled on top of each other’ to create a building, yet the individual bricks, or door frames are created by specific actions and processes, that are quite different.
    I really don’t see what your problem is here, other than the persistent one of poor comprehension.
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    By the way, do you believe that reindeers can change color due to environmental changes if bears can't? Listen to what this cute little girl says. Do you disagree? Why should bears be different?
    Once again, I have no especial knowledge of ursine taxonomy, biology, ecology, or genetics. If bears can do this, I am not surprised. If they cannot do this I am not surprised. The difference, if it exists, is the result of natural selection and genetic drift acting on a genetic legacy constructed, in part, from chance.

    I can’t help wondering if it is the chance aspect that so upsets creationists.
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Ophiolite is so right that its possible to get here.
    lackadaisical, go and study damn it
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    The fact is, I can give you examples where numerous mammals can change fur color quickly.....deer, rabbits, foxes, weasels, etc. In fact, if you name an mammal I can probably give you a link that shows how it can change fur/skin color depending on environment. And this happens individually -- not through the population like Toe requires. (Give me a link to a neo-darwin website that tells me otherwise.)


    I can also show you how fish and lizards can grow or shrink depending on environment through a degrading mutation. They can also turn colors quickly depending on environment.

    http://www.kidcyber.com.au/topics/marineiguana.htm

    I've also shown you how insects such as butterflys can emerge with distinct wing patterns depending on the season and the predators that might be around. (The author even claims that the mechanism is NOT KNOWN)

    I can also show you how tadpoles develop into two distinct creatures depending on their diet.....which can shape and mold their heads/jaw structure. Worms, crickets, spiders, roaches, beetles, moths, butterflys -- they're all the same. (all directed by environment)

    The same can be said about about mice and horses. Hard seeds or abrasive grass can shape and mold the animal's phenotype....heads, teeth, jaws, mouths, bodys can all be molded to fit the diet one consumes.

    http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/ori...ersSoFine.html (individual birds change color)

    Birds usually make their own pigments, but sometimes they get them from their food. So a change in diet can sometimes change a bird's color. Some orioles look more red or yellow than normal, and tanagers may look orange, when their diets have more or less of some fruits. Waxwings usually have a bright yellow band at the tip of their tails, but diet can turn this orange. If flamingoes don't eat enough shrimp, they can't produce the pigment that makes their feathers so pink and they become whit

    The fact is, I generally have to go to PET forums or non-evolutionary sites to find this stuff out. The fact is, there is no evolutionary scientific website I can go to to learn this stuff. The fact is, your scientists are AFRAID of real science. The fact is, over time (generations) animals can grow bigger or smaller depending on the weather....(see bergmann's rule and Allen's rule). And these processes, I submit, happen through the INDIVIDUAL -- as a few generations pass -- , not the population over thousands/millions of years.

    http://www.mpks.org/faq/ans128.shtml

    If you look up any animal in God's creation, you'll find that they have similar abilities. Animals often change colors and/or individual characteristics depending on environment, diet, temperature, predators, etc.

    It happens all over, man. And it happens individually, not through population -- which puts the death stake into your theory because your theory states that POPULATIONS evolve, not individuals....now prove me wrong by leading me to a neo-darwin site that says otherwise.

    And the fact is, if individual animals can change their phenotypes through diet, environment or predators, then it could give the illusion in the fossil record of "evolution." And the funny thing is, you do not have biological mechanism that fits under the neo-darwin umbrella to explain it.

    The fact is you are trying to MORPH all of intellectual design into your theory so you can win the arguement here. But I'm not buying it. The fact is, your theory is in BIG trouble. The goalposts are having to be changed again and again to make up for the fact that it is obvious that individual animals are adaptive....and if individual animals are adaptive within their own lifetimes -- or within just a few generations -- then your theory has puncture wound in its head because there would then be no need for populations to evolve.

    Seems to me you're trying to have your cake and eat it too in this debate. I want a neo-darwin website that verfies that "adaptation" happens through individuals. I also want a neo-darwin website that tells me how simple plasticity -- which you agree happens all over -- has effected the fossil record. If you cannot point me to these, then I will just assume that you are just mistaken.

    Thanks for the good debate
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    639
    ....and if individual animals are adaptive within their own lifetimes -- or within just a few generations -- then your theory has puncture wound in its head because there would then be no need for populations to evolve.
    Can a lizard grow wings?
    Can a fish grow legs?

    The key to understanding here is that phenotype only provides so much wiggle room.

    And, yes, phenotype is nothing new. Far from it.
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    The fact is, I can give you examples where numerous mammals can change fur color quickly.....deer, rabbits, foxes, weasels, etc. In fact, if you name an mammal I can probably give you a link that shows how it can change fur/skin color depending on environment. And this happens individually -- not through the population like Toe requires. (Give me a link to a neo-darwin website that tells me otherwise.)
    thats not evolution, Its individual adeptation to the enviorment

    I can also show you how fish and lizards can grow or shrink depending on environment through a degrading mutation. They can also turn colors quickly depending on environment.

    http://www.kidcyber.com.au/topics/marineiguana.htm

    I've also shown you how insects such as butterflys can emerge with distinct wing patterns depending on the season and the predators that might be around. (The author even claims that the mechanism is NOT KNOWN)
    see above, know the differens DAMN IT



    The fact is, I generally have to go to PET forums or non-evolutionary sites to find this stuff out. The fact is, there is no evolutionary scientific website I can go to to learn this stuff. The fact is, your scientists are AFRAID of real science. The fact is, over time (generations) animals can grow bigger or smaller depending on the weather....(see bergmann's rule and Allen's rule). And these processes, I submit, happen through the INDIVIDUAL -- as a few generations pass -- , not the population over thousands/millions of years
    we are not afraid. becuase it is real scientists who do the real science.
    yes they can, becuase their genome allows flexebility, without this flexebility of the phenotype the animal is less probeble to survive
    once again as darwin said "its not the strongest that survives, but the one most responseble to changes" <---- NOTICE THIS
    So animals need a flexebility

    And the fact is, if individual animals can change their phenotypes through diet, environment or predators, then it could give the illusion in the fossil record of "evolution." And the funny thing is, you do not have biological mechanism that fits under the neo-darwin umbrella to explain it.
    The flexebility of animals isnt greate enough to cause a confusion between 2 different specieses on bigger animals, smaller onces where color is the only main differens there is allways a huge chance of ocnfusion

    The fact is you are trying to MORPH all of intellectual design into your theory so you can win the arguement here. But I'm not buying it. The fact is, your theory is in BIG trouble. The goalposts are having to be changed again and again to make up for the fact that it is obvious that individual animals are adaptive....and if individual animals are adaptive within their own lifetimes -- or within just a few generations -- then your theory has puncture wound in its head because there would then be no need for populations to evolve.
    ID? evolution is against ID
    yes, individuals are adeptive, thats what we have said, TO A LIMIT
    the bigger transformation cant be done by a individual. If the genes say you cant get wings, then you will never be able to get wings, until your genome says that you can. Like you will never see a fish get wings and become a flish

    Seems to me you're trying to have your cake and eat it too in this debate. I want a neo-darwin website that verfies that "adaptation" happens through individuals. I also want a neo-darwin website that tells me how simple plasticity -- which you agree happens all over -- has effected the fossil record. If you cannot point me to these, then I will just assume that you are just mistaken.
    seems like you are projecting your stuff on us
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  33. #32  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    To repeat again, perhaps more directly this time, to be spouting the nonsense you are spouting requires one of two things be true: one, you are as thick as two short planks nailed together; two, you are as dishonest as the day is long in the Arctic summer.
    I lean to the second of these two conjectures. You have displayed a certain native intelligence in your posts, but your twisting of facts, and refusal to acknowledge simple concepts of biology is so contrived that I imagine it fools only fellow travellers and the criminally insane.
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    The fact is, I can give you examples where numerous mammals can change fur color quickly..... And this happens individually -- not through the population like Toe requires. (Give me a link to a neo-darwin website that tells me otherwise.)
    Get a grip of reality my young friend. Of course it happens individually. Who the hell do you think catalogued many of these changes - evolutionists. I have changed my hair colour - was I evolving? Like hell I was, I was getting older.
    You are deliberately confusing changes that occur to the individual, with season, with time, with diet, with age, etc, with changes that may occur over the course of generations. I will not discuss any other aspect of evolution until we have hammered out this particular point and you have accepted that this is completely normal, completely natural, and wholly compatible with evolution.
    Let's proceed on that basis now.
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    It happens all over, man. And it happens individually, not through population -- which puts the death stake into your theory because your theory states that POPULATIONS evolve, not individuals....now prove me wrong by leading me to a neo-darwin site that says otherwise.
    Re-reading your prior posts I find myself leaning again to the hypothesis that you aren't very bright, certainly not at all well informed. There is nothing wrong with that, but if you are so arrogant as to take that ignorance and argue as if you were in a position of strength then you must expect to be subject to serious attack.
    You seem to think, in biology, that change and evolution are interchangeable terms. They are not. Change is change. Evolution is a change in the proportion of alleles in a population. You have not demonstrated any change in the genetic character of the individuals in any of the examples you have quoted.
    Here are a couple of abstracts. If you can understand their significance you will see that they demonstrate the foolishness of your posturing.

    Camargo CR, et al “Seasonal pelage color change: news based on a South American rodent.” An Acad Bras Cienc. 2006 Mar;78(1):77-86.

    Mammalian seasonal molting and color change are known to be influenced by photoperiod changes. Calomys laucha, a South American rodent, exhibits seasonal pelage color change; however, unlike Northern hemisphere rodents, which present a gray or brown color during summer and a whitish color during winter, C. laucha pelage changes from an orange color during summer to a dark gray color during winter. Animals maintained for over a year in stationary photoperiod (LD 12:12h, 22 degrees C) presented orange pelage color during the summer corresponding month (January), and gray color during the winter corresponding month (July). Same age animals were evaluated during summer or winter months, and also showed different colors. Animals exposed for 12 weeks to summer or winter artificial conditions displayed color change, not according to the environmental conditions, as expected, but similar to that of animals maintained in stationary photoperiod. These results suggest that pelage color change in C. laucha is controlled by an endogenous circannual rhythm. The adaptive function of C. laucha color change is discussed.

    Park J.H., et al A study of skin color by melanin index according to site, gestational age, birth weight and season of birth in Korean neonates. J Korean Med Sci. 2005 Feb;20(1):105-8.

    Human skin color shows variations throughout life and influenced by various factors such as race, sex, age and hormones. Since the development of spectrophotometer, many studies on human skin color have been done. However, few studies have been carried out to measure the skin color of neonatal infants. The aim of our study was to assess the variations in skin color according to site, gestational age, birth weight and season of birth in Korean neonates. A total of 447 healthy neonates (3 days after birth, 213 males and 234 females) were enrolled in the present study. Skin pigmentation was measured by reflectance spectrophotometer (Derma-Spectrophotometer, Cortex technology, Hadsund, Denmark) at four different sites (forehead, upper arm, abdomen, and inguinal area). The forehead showed highest melanin index in all sites measured (p<0.05). There was no significant difference according to gestational age, birth weight, and season of birth. This result imply that the skin color in neonates is mainly determined genetically.
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    68
    I think the root of lackadaisical's problem is that they don't realize that it is not the phenotype but the genotype that determines a species.

    There is much variance between humans of African descent and humans of Asian descent. Does that make them two different species?

    There is very little difference between many types of flies (look it up yourself) and there are hundreds of species of moths which are brown with few distinct markings and any untrained eye could look at a collection of hundreds and wonder why the entimologest had slaughtered so many of the same species when indeed each is a distinct species.

    Imagine all animals as sheets of paper. The general look of the paper (color, scent, shape, size) is the phenotype but the writing on the paper is the genotype. I don't care if its a square white sheet the size of my thumb and a pitch black octagon the size of Ohio, if they both say the same thing they're both the same species. If there are two identically sized purple, lavender scented round peices of paper but one says "Table" and the other says "Peanut Butter Octopus Sandwitch" then they are different species.

    It makes no difference if a specific individual's phenotype is extremely different from all other individuals, if the genetics is the same (mostly) then a bird-like creature could be the same species as an animal which resembles a souvaneir picture frame (from Italy).

    Phenotypes are expected to vary as an allele's frequency in the genome fluctuates. This is the reason that the peppered moth's phenotype changed...the allele coding for sprinkled dots and smudges was selected for by natural selection. It wasn't because the moths who first saw the sludge falling from the sky and dirtying their trees said "Hey, if we were sprinkled a bit, we would be better...lets do it!"...an individual cannot change its genetic makeup (and therefore its phenotype) during its lifetime.

    A seasonal fur color is included in the phenotype. That doesn't mean that during the spring, fox A has light brown fur and fox B has pitch-black fur and then during the winter both have white fur /because their phenotype changed/. NO! It means that their phenotype calls for the foxes to have brown/black fur during a time when the days are longer (spring/summer) and to shed that fur and grow a thicker, white coat during the shorter days (fall/winter).

    Genetic makeup simply doesn't change from one year to the next in the same individual and if it does, it will either be a silent change (no visible result in structure), an insignificant change (slight results observeable, but only in cells descended from the origional which will probably be at a disadvantage and therefore not be common), or a very bad change (a change which may cause cancer). Additionally, there is a point at which tissues have a tendency not to replentish themselves much and the cells no longer go through meitosis as commonly (such as your heart muscle)...

    And evolution is directed by the predator/prey relation, not the individual being observed. For a bear, this means "What does this mutation mean for this individual's likelyhood to find food", for an antelope this means "What does this mutation mean for this individual's likelyhood to run away from the Tiger successfully". I assure you that reproducing humans cannot choose the phenotype of their children anymore than reproducing bears or antelopes.

    I think I got your confusion explained, but if not, please state your responses more clearly. They are a bit hard to follow sometimes.

    -Ajain
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    its either one of those things or he is mighty stupid
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  37. #36 Oh Brother... 
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    And this happens individually -- not through the population like Toe requires. (Give me a link to a neo-darwin website that tells me otherwise.)
    Dear God you are stupid ... All animals change as they grow, develop, etc. Even humans change through the seasons (people tend to be more tanned in the summer, less so in the winter). This is a change brought on by the amount of Sun exposure reacting with the pigmenty stuff in the skin (someone can be more specific on this :wink.

    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    (The author even claims that the mechanism is NOT KNOWN)
    Who cares? What we do know is that the mechanism is already there in the genetic make up of those organisms (just like the mechanism for altering human skin colour based on Sun light). It's not something that requires Darwinian evolution to explain.

    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    The same can be said about about mice and horses. Hard seeds or abrasive grass can shape and mold the animal's phenotype....heads, teeth, jaws, mouths, bodys can all be molded to fit the diet one consumes.
    All that shows is that diet affects development... something people have known since they first existed. If you want to see an even simpler example of how diet affects development, just stop eating for a while: I guarrantee you will die of starvation 8).

    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    Birds usually make their own pigments, but sometimes they get them from their food. So a change in diet can sometimes change a bird's color. Some orioles look more red or yellow than normal, and tanagers may look orange, when their diets have more or less of some fruits. Waxwings usually have a bright yellow band at the tip of their tails, but diet can turn this orange. If flamingoes don't eat enough shrimp, they can't produce the pigment that makes their feathers so pink and they become whit
    My parents tell me that when I was rather young, my favourite food was squash. I apparently ate so much of the stuff that my skin actually started turning yellow-ish orange. I shall have to drag out some pictures from then to see what I looked like .

    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    The fact is, I generally have to go to PET forums or non-evolutionary sites to find this stuff out. The fact is, there is no evolutionary scientific website I can go to to learn this stuff. The fact is, your scientists are AFRAID of real science.
    I'm gonna show this forum here again...

    EvC Forum: Discussion and Controversy


    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    The fact is, over time (generations) animals can grow bigger or smaller depending on the weather....(see bergmann's rule and Allen's rule). And these processes, I submit, happen through the INDIVIDUAL -- as a few generations pass -- , not the population over thousands/millions of years.
    You submit this because you don't have a clue what you are talking about (else you are intentionally trying to misrepresent the data... shame shame shame). These changes can happen over time, but NOT through the individual. What you are suggesting is more on the lines of Lamarkian (sp?) Evolution than Darwinian. Which, I guess is still a form of evolution (though long ago proved incorrect). We think you're a Creationist... but maybe you're really part of a secret society that worships Lamark?




    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    If you look up any animal in God's creation, you'll find that they have similar abilities.
    Nope... you're a Creationist.... .


    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    It happens all over, man. And it happens individually, not through population -- which puts the death stake into your theory because your theory states that POPULATIONS evolve, not individuals....now prove me wrong by leading me to a neo-darwin site that says otherwise.
    You're right, man! You and some other crack-pot Creationists have finally begun opening the hole in Evolutionary theory. We were hoping you guys would never find it... but we were only kidding ourselves. Buying time with all of the micro/macro crap.

    Anywho! Populations DO evolve. What's happening when furs change colour within the individual is NOT evolution! Simply, if you want it to be evolution, you really do have to end up with different DNA afterwards (which only happens from one generation to another). If it's happening without a DNA change, then that means that the ability to change was already in the organism's DNA, and it's just switching on and off.

    But, the rest of your post is so damned long... and so equally full of crap, that I can't be bothered to respond to it .




    J0N
    :-)
     

  38. #37  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    You don't suppose we've scared him off, do you?
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    elts hope we did, not to be mean but he seems to be a compelte and uderly morron, my "famous" formula
    Y=K/X
    when we put in his IQ/knowledge we get the answer "error" / "infinite" on a calculator
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  40. #39  
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    Typical Creationist really. Shows up to make some crazy cockamimi argument that doesn't work. Gets ground down like flour from the people who actually know a thing or two about science, and then just leaves... bye bye.

    We'll probably never see him again.




    J0N
    :-)
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    He probably went off and posted the exact same nonsense on another forum. Hit and run ignorance - can't stick around TOO long or you might rick actually learning something.
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    No....I'm not scared off I'm just getting started, man!! I had to go out of town over the weekend.

    Well I see none of you have answered any of my questions. You don't seem to ackowledge the fact that every individual animals on earth is adpative, which invalidates darwin's theory of populational adaptation. But, I guess we've hit a roadblock here since you cannot seem to grasp this. So let me back up and tell you where I'm coming from:

    My belief in God is evidence-based. I base this on the fact that everything in this world operates on feedback. Humans, and every other animal in the world contain a dynamic relationship between their internal and external environments. And each feeds off the other. Feedback on both levels is in constant motion and in constant communication. There is an internal switch in every creature that feeds off of external cues. This is as obvious as you are looking at this screen right now.

    But not only that, it is my contention that EVERYTHING in this universe operates on feedback. As humans we have internal feedback that tells us when things aren’t operating correctly inside our bodies. Chronic heartburn, for example can tell you that you’ve been eating the wrong foods. We also have internal feelings – which can trigger physical sensations -- that stem from external feedback from others.

    And there are lots of examples of external feedback. In fact, almost everything we do in life requires some type of feedback. Our jobs, our relationships, our conversations on here. Feedback is the universal phenomenon at every level of God’s creation. Ultimately, every life-form is a virtual 2-way street of internal and external feedback.

    I also believe that consciousness a universal phenomenon like feedback. Does consciousness only happen in humans? Does consciousness extend to other animals? Dogs, cats, bears, mice? Does consciousness extend to moths and ants and birds and bugs? Does consciousness extend to viruses and bacteria? Does consciousness extend to plants and trees and flowers and grass? Does consciousness extend to raindrops and sunrays? How about sticks and rocks? Does consciousness extend to the sun, earth, stars and galaxies? Does consciousness extend throughout the whole incredible universe?

    Ultimately does consciousness exist in all feedback at every level of nature? I say yes.......I mean everything is made up of atoms. Ultimately atomic particles are made of wisdom, and wisdom is the product of thought – and thought is the result of consciousness. God is truly in everything! His thought is everywhere…and ultimately, thought is the originator of everything that’s around us -- including us....and thought ultimately responds from feedback. Feedback can be physical, mental, or spiritual....and ultimately God is in harmony with Himself.

    And this would make perfect sense with the concept of plasticity...and ultimately I believe that plasticity is responsible for much of what we find in the fossil record that evolutionists refer to as "evolutionary change." A change in the phenotype is a change in the phenotype. A biological change is a biological change. Who's to say what caused it? I propose that most of so-called "evolution" was either plasticity or non-random mutations stimulated by the environment. For example, the polar bear, according to evolutionists, supposedly evolved over vast time periods. I say nonsense! That was almost certainly a phenotypic phenomenon forced by the environment -- through hormones -- and that bear probably changed phenotypes quickly -- in a matter of a few generations at most -- to accommodate himself.


    However you evolutionists think differently. You happen to think everything was a result of chance. You think animals evolved over millions of years -- and had nothing to do with environmental stimulation or feedback. Somehow you think that the origin of life -- and all its inherent laws – are explained through accidents. But as I see it, chance has been given every opportunity in science to prove itself – yet what do we have? A big, fat ZERO…and the bottom line is that every time chance is given the opportunity to prove its assumed fundamental role in the order of the universe, it ends up being an embarassing disaster.
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/sc...c.mousegenome/

    Does this mean my direct ancestor is a mouse and not a chimp?

    How do you guys explain this?

    And this:

    http://www.sciencentral.com/articles...e_id=218392305


    Many of these stretches of DNA, called "ultra-conserved" regions, don't appear to code for protein, so they might have been dismissed as junk if they hadn't shown up in so many different species. And if nature has gone to so much trouble to preserve these ultra-conserved regions over all these years, Haussler reasons, then they must be more important than just "junk." "From what we know about the rate at which DNA changes from generation to generation, the chance of finding even one stretch of DNA in the human genome that is unchanged between humans and mice and rats over these hundred million years is less than one divided by ten followed by 22 zeros. It's a tiny, tiny fraction. It's virtually impossible that this would happen by chance."
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    Does this mean my direct ancestor is a mouse and not a chimp?
    Actually your direct ancestor wasn't a mouse OR a chimp. However more recently than in the case of the mouse did humans and chimps have a common ancestor. And even farther back, humans chimps and mice all likewise shared a common ancestor. What's the problem?

    However you evolutionists think differently. You happen to think everything was a result of chance. You think animals evolved over millions of years -- and had nothing to do with environmental stimulation or feedback. Somehow you think that the origin of life -- and all its inherent laws – are explained through accidents.
    You're wrong here too. Mutation is random but SELECTION is not. Try and get that through your head
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    68
    Lackadaisical lacks (bad pun) an understanding of evolution.

    Like neutrino said, an animal's genetic code will randomly change, but if this causes the animal to die, not be able to reproduce, or get killed then this change won't stick in the genome. This is basic, proved-everywhere, genetics. The only mutations that will stick are the ones that allow the animal to live, reproduce, and avoid getting killed. If the animal can still do all those, but is less well adapted due to the mutation, it will still die out (there was a study on two slightly different strains of bacteria and the one which was slightly better selected won out over a while)...

    So...
    mutation A happens, its bad...it doesn't stick.
    mutation B happens, its okay...it makes the creature not move as quickly, but it sticks as a rare allele in lesser-selected critters until it will get selected out...
    mutation C happens, its great!...it allows the creature to move 12.9x faster so it sweeps the population and within a few generations, all creatures of the species are zipping around the forest.

    HOWEVER, then another creature comes in and its specially selected eyes pick out quick movement like a sore thumb. mutation C is no longer advantageous! it causes the origional creature which has mutation C to be picked out and eaten easily. However, the origional allele and mutation B (move normally and move slowly respectively...they weren't the best, but they would have taken a while to completely permiate the population) still exist and so they will be selected for.

    Now, in one generation, the stress of the introduced predator caused the phenotype of the creature to change amazingly (12.9x slower or more) but that doesn't mean that God said "I'll tweak this"...

    What we observe as quick phenotypic snaps are either rare alleles which come out due to an introduced threat...or to sudden, freak, advantageous (or non-affecting) changes which stick.

    ...and if you talk to your conscious atoms, then you might want to take that up with an MD and not us...

    -Ajain
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Well I see none of you have answered any of my questions. You don't seem to ackowledge the fact that every individual animals on earth is adpative, which invalidates darwin's theory of populational adaptation.
    dont know if you are dyslexig or what, but we have agreed on individuals cvan adept, to a limit, and it goes not against darwinism

    Chronic heartburn, for example can tell you that you’ve been eating the wrong foods. We also have internal feelings
    or you can have genes for it

    Does consciousness extend to viruses and bacteria? Does consciousness extend to plants and trees and flowers and grass? Does consciousness extend to raindrops and sunrays? How about sticks and rocks? Does consciousness extend to the sun, earth, stars and galaxies? Does consciousness extend throughout the whole incredible universe?
    No! Neural network is required for it


    Ultimately atomic particles are made of wisdom
    No again, wisdom is society based, whats wisdom for the old aztecs wasent it for the greecs. therefor they dont have wisdom, but they contain information. Wich doesnt need a counsciuss

    For example, the polar bear, according to evolutionists, supposedly evolved over vast time periods. I say nonsense! That was almost certainly a phenotypic phenomenon forced by the environment -- through hormones -- and that bear probably changed phenotypes quickly -- in a matter of a few generations at most -- to accommodate himself.
    say what ever you want it wont make it true. If it were only phenotype that changed it wouldnt be passed on to the next generation. Therefor each and every indivdualbear would have to adept, wich is a huge energy cost, extra cost. You dont seem to know how biology worx. If the conditions are very harsh the evolution takes short time becuase it is so freaking harsh. Do you know kambrium explostion?

    However you evolutionists think differently. You happen to think everything was a result of chance. You think animals evolved over millions of years -- and had nothing to do with environmental stimulation or feedback. Somehow you think that the origin of life -- and all its inherent laws – are explained through accidents
    Mutations are change, selection is not. depending on the enviorment (physical/biological) certain genes will be "choosen" to live on and get more kids.

    Actually your direct ancestor wasn't a mouse OR a chimp. However more recently than in the case of the mouse did humans and chimps have a common ancestor. And even farther back, humans chimps and mice all likewise shared a common ancestor. What's the problem?
    once again you dont know what you are talking about. Chimps and us have a common ancestor, we go further back we have a common ancestor with all apes, even further we get more and more mammal classes into this common ancestor. and so is the rat. the first animals that were to exist were acctualy rat-like creatures.

    It's a tiny, tiny fraction. It's virtually impossible that this would happen by chance.
    play a game of card, do it for like 10 times, then ask a mathematic to calculate the probability of you getting that order of the cards,, and you´ll see that its very improbeble. but yet we both can then agree on that it happened. Knowing how it is and calculate backward the probability of that event dont make it proof that it didnt happen
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    Boy the answers are getting weaker and weaker from you guys. The fact is, you guys' wild guesses about evolution is a big, fat joke because I happen to know that molecular biology has dessimated Darwin's theory. The fact is, this field of science has been totally ignored for decades....and only now are neo-darwinists able to come up with a half-cocked theory to be able to get around obvious individual adaptations.

    The fact is, I'm convinced that Toe can adapt to anything. It's an unfalsifiable theory because it originates in the minds of its brainwashed members. You cannot point me to one fact. You cannot point me to one mutation that is proven to contribute to cummulative selection. You cannot point me to ONE experiment that validates your theory on any level -- in any field. It's all a mirage.

    Heck, you cannot even point me to one airtight intermediate fossil -- when there should be millions of them.

    The fact is every one of your so-called mechanisms is a conservative device. Mutations, like sandcastles that wear down, almost always result in a loss of information, and they're almost always a result of internal/external forces. Mutations that add beneficial information are incredibly rare -- if not impossible. Also, Natural Selection could never work as advertised....at least science has never bothered to have the guts to test it in a controlled setting. Thus, since all your mechanisms are conservative, there is no way for your theory to take an animal from simple to complex. It's impossible

    I'm convinced that most of "evolution" happens in the womb, during development. Just like my post earlier indicicated, we are all subject to our environments -- and this starts at the moment of conception. After birth, animals are much like bicycles: they keep their balance in their environment by constantly wobbling from one side to the other. This happens all over in every creature. And it happens throghout their lifetimes. Afterwards, their offspring start the same game of life, full of twists and turns, all of which are directed. Life does not play roulette.

    And the fact is, we are self-organized, which means that GENES do not make the organism. Instead genes are merely tools of which the body uses. DNA is not the starting point...it's merely a spoke in the wheel of life. Genetics is the biggest fraud concept in scientific history. This is proven by the fact that mice and probably every other mammal has 99% of the same genes we do. This is a mark of unity from a common designer. It's not proof of diversity, which neo-darwinism has told us for decades.

    Everything works off feedback...everything has inherent wisdom...and without wisdom the human brain would never be able to do this:

    http://www.neurologyreviews.com/jan0...nrestored.html

    Checkmate
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    68
    Lets think about these genes of ours...

    Each cell in our body has hundreds of associated proteins, many of which are diverse in their workings, dealing with other proteins and molecules and even with DNA or the cell membrane. If something works, it /won't/ be changed. There is very little difference between a mouse's hemoglobin and a humans, and hemoglobin is hundreds (I think thousands, actually) of amino acids long. IT WORKS so if mutations were to change it, the animal would die which would stop the animal from passing on its special gene for hemoglobin.

    Now, junk DNA actually gets made every now and then as messanger proteins or an odd receptor. It may not be secreted from the cell, but junk DNA does do something. Even if it is a repetitive bit, it will get looked at. It is probable that this streach of "junk DNA" codes for a messanger protein in a long list of messenger proteins which doesn't deal with the origional messanger, nor the end results (maybe it doesn't even cause the start of two different lines which could lead to two different results...it could just be an apparently superfluous link in the chain)...but if this protein were to change, it could cause the entire chain to go down the tubes and lead to death.

    OR, like was mentioned before, it could just be fluke chance. If you says "this area has a 1x10^-22 chance to be at a height of 55 feet above sea level, it is true that the tiny area you chose of land will be that high...but I can assure you that there are areas of the earth that are at a height of 55 feet above sea level. Just because something is unlikely, it doesn't mean that it won't happen. You know what else is highly unlikely? Each individual's precise mix of alleles is just one possible combination in, literally, billions of billions of possibilities. Especially considering mutations, un-sucessfully formed gametes, etc. Does this mean that you don't exist?

    -Ajain
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    68
    What secret molecular biology voodoo do you know that rips apart evolution? All I have seen is gross misunderstandings about how genes work.

    Mutations are highly unlikely, and aditionally are highly unlikely to change an allele to another allele by freak chance, and additionally highly unlikely to be advantageous. I /assure/ you that each parent's genetic makeup will account for exactly 1/2 of the progeny's genetic makeup evolution doesn't happen to entire populations at once, evolution sweeps generations from a single individual who has mutated by chance (or from a small sub-population who posessed a rare-allele which has become advantageous)...That is the way it is, all children [should have] learned it, and the way that has been observed.

    I am not convinced that the nitty-gritty details of creation appear as evolution by odd human's sick minds, but instead that the nitty-gritty details of evolution appear as evolution by the odd human's warped mind. All religion in one way or another depends on each member being kept in their place by all other members, a slight form of brainwash. If you let yourself believe everything you hear/read, then you are just accepting all the more brain-washing. My knowledge of evolution comes from a knowledge of basic genetics with reasoning through natural events as presented to me, not spoon-fed to me. I am lead to believe that creationists get their knowledge of creation from a basic knowledge of religious beliefs (highly unstable...especially the bible) which is then warped to fit natural events which they pick and choose based on how it works.

    There are events that don't work with both, but evolution allows for mechanisms to be theorized to allow for such exceptions whereas religious beliefs cannot be reasonably changed for the masses, and without much criticism.

    Evolution: Non-mendilian genetics has been observed in some types of mustard plant where the "hothead" gene went from the homozygous mutated form to the homozygous natural form in 1 generation (although a conversion to heterozygous was much, MUCH more commonly observed)...this is one case where individuals were all tested...There is still debate on how this works, but mechanisms are being studied to lead to a solution (especially the idea of a dsRNA cache of an organism's genome being stored as a backup for gametes)...

    Creation: Explain Lucy to me. If evolution doesn't happen, and we have conditions literally the same on some parts of teh earth as those that Lucy lived in, then why don't we have specimans of Lucy from the last few hundred (or, indeed, thousand) years laying around? All of humanity has been identified since no later than the 1700's with the exception of very few (maybe three-thousand) individuals living in extremely remote conditions. A rarity of a living creature which appears such as Lucy from human parents would be something to write about but we have /no written material/ about any living specimans like Lucy.

    Then there is the basilosaurous. If you have debated creation/evolution before, this guy should be as familiar as the common dog to you. If you haven't, then explain the basilosaurous' existance (lets not debate vestigial structures, that just gets meticulous). We have many, many specimans of basilosaurous which are whales with legs. The legs may have been vestigial, may have been sexual claspers, but either way the important thing is their existance (especially the existance of finger-ish structures).

    One mutation? but a moment! The mutation I observed in the E. coli which allowed the DNA->RNA translator protein to not be affected by the antibiotic (rifampicin). It caused /total/ resistance. A single amino acid was changed by the mutation of a single base pair which caused a more-solid strain of E coli.

    look up the SOS response. It is a response by bacteria to copy DNA more slopily, CAUSING MUTATIONS. It would appear as if bacteria have a death wish, by your reasoning! conservative, indeed!

    incredably rare, which is why populations have a tendancy not to evolve unless there is sufficiant extra life around. If there are three individuals of a rare species of antelopes, any mutation will likely cause the species [eminant] extinction (such as the ?white tiger? which is a rare animal which, almost all individuals have a disadvantageous mutation). In E coli, or humans even, there are tons of individuals and so mutations are going to happen. Humans have, however, managed to get around natural selection by using tools to construct artificial environments. There are rare alleles which are advantageous in humans however (such as one which allows for resistance to HIV).

    Lets think about genetic diversity...

    Mice have mouths with teeth, ridges on the top of their mouth, a tonge with taste buds, and a throat where their trachea and esofagous diverge. The trachea leads to two lungs which branch in a fractal-like pattern until they reach tiny /tiny/ passage ways which allow blood to get oxygenated. Their esofagous leads to a stomach which secretes proteins and acid to break down food into constituent parts. This leads to a basic environment in the small intestion where finger-like projections take nutrients out of the mush. A human works extremely similarily.

    I won't go into the circulatory, excretory, skeletal, neurological, or reproductive systems of a mouse, but they are all equally similar with very few differences (mostly skeletal). We develop the same, we live the same, we eat some different food and we have different eyes, but mice and humans are /extremely/ similar. Taking into account redundant DNA, mice and humans are very similar. Humans just grow larger, don't have tails, don't grow fur, avoid eating wood, and think a little bit more (in most cases).

    the similarities in DNA are not evidence of a common designer, but evidence of natural selection doing its job, keeping DNA which works.

    Diversity is skin deep (literally). Outer lookings, however important they are to humans, account for only a portion (less than 1%) of an organism's DNA. It is selection for certain looks (by predators and mates) which makes this one field seem so necessary to us. If you look at a mouse and a human and don't think that we are diverse, then try living like a mouse. Though we are not very different genetically, humans and mice are, in a physical sense, worlds apart.

    If you think brain growth to allow a creature to survive is due to the individual saying to itself "hey...I need to see!", then talk to the people who got their vision back. A severed optical nerve, though accounting for a small percent of the population, probably afflicts millions in the grand scheme of things. How many people got their vision back? In my skimming, I picked up the number 14. Also, if the connection was not thrown completely out of whack and all necessary structures for vision still existed, then it is expected that one's nerves would repair themselves to an extent.

    There was something in scientific american mind a month or two ago about a savant who was learning how to play music and was showing significant brain growth despite being over 50 years old. Practice creating a strain and stimulus to need a pathway will result in the body's attempting to build the pathway. This happens most before the age of 20, but can still happen afterwords. If you think this is an overlooked mechanism, then you obviously have not done nearly as much research as you should have.

    -Ajain
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Lackadaisical I like how you completely ignore when people reply to your nonsense, and instead decide to just post more nonsense. If you only want to hear yourself talk why don't you buy a tape recorder instead of posting on message boards where others are forced to listen to your rambling. It's the same ignorant, incorrect, strawman creationist bullshit we've heard a million times before.
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    He ignores you, you ignore him. I have found that it is oftentimes pointless to try and knock some sense into idiots. It is good sometimes because you get to learn things from other people that are posting refutes for his nonsense.
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
     

  52. #51  
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    Heck, you cannot even point me to one airtight intermediate fossil -- when there should be millions of them.
    This shows you don't understand the theory of evolution. Changes don't take place in big steps, but rather gradually. It's not like there was an ape, then a (whatever's next), then a cro-magnun, then a modern human in an SUV! The changes happen VERY gradually. However, at some point they cross over that line where they can no longer interbreed or to the point where they are extremely different, and we classify them as different species. Because, in reality, all the species on Earth are related, and only differ in degree from the first living thing and from each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    The fact is every one of your so-called mechanisms is a conservative device. Mutations, like sandcastles that wear down, almost always result in a loss of information, and they're almost always a result of internal/external forces. Mutations that add beneficial information are incredibly rare -- if not impossible.
    Beneficial information? Something about this sounds a little Star Trekky to me .

    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    Genetics is the biggest fraud concept in scientific history.
    That's a pretty big thing to say. Mind giving us some proof?

    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    ...everything has inherent wisdom...
    I think you're living proof that everything does NOT have inherent wisdom :wink:.




    J0N
    :-)
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Boy the answers are getting weaker and weaker from you guys. The fact is, you guys' wild guesses about evolution is a big, fat joke because I happen to know that molecular biology has dessimated Darwin's theory
    plz go back and read some of the posts we have posted, and molecular biology dont go against evolution, it supports it acctualy if you know what you are talking about.

    You cannot point me to one fact. You cannot point me to one mutation that is proven to contribute to cummulative selection. You cannot point me to ONE experiment that validates your theory on any level -- in any field. It's all a mirage.
    we can and we have, but i can ask a bat to look to its right becuase a lion is comming there but it would still not see it, its to blind to see it.

    The fact is every one of your so-called mechanisms is a conservative device. Mutations, like sandcastles that wear down, almost always result in a loss of information, and they're almost always a result of internal/external forces. Mutations that add beneficial information are incredibly rare -- if not impossible. Also, Natural Selection could never work as advertised....at least science has never bothered to have the guts to test it in a controlled setting. Thus, since all your mechanisms are conservative, there is no way for your theory to take an animal from simple to complex. It's impossible
    its impossible to a creationist mind. if it is 1/1000000 chance a mutation is good then the population would only need too be 1000000 to have atleast one good mtuation, and the populations are quite big so it is possible for a population to get good mutations.
    never bothered? you are dummer than i thought. This is a field that doesnt build on experiements, it builds on observations. And those are equaly good as experiments.

    And the fact is, we are self-organized, which means that GENES do not make the organism. Instead genes are merely tools of which the body uses. DNA is not the starting point...it's merely a spoke in the wheel of life
    genes do make the organism, remove the dna from a egg and it wont live and develop to a lifeform

    Genetics is the biggest fraud concept in scientific history. This is proven by the fact that mice and probably every other mammal has 99% of the same genes we do.
    genetics is very good and have given good results, and is currently helping people in africa and such getting mroe food.
    99% with all mammals? you dont read things well do you? its only with the chimpanse its about 90%, other mammals have less than 90%

    why do you keep iognoring us? we explain things to you and you dont read it
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  54. #53  
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    if it is 1/1000000 chance a mutation is good then the population would only need too be 1000000 to have atleast one good mtuation...
    CAREFULL! The population could be seventy ba-zillion, and STILL the mutation might not occur. The chances are played out seperately EACH time a new individual is born, and each birth is indipendent of other births.

    An otherwise minor error in what seems to be a good post .




    J0N
    :-)
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    yes you are right on that, but at such a big numbers the chance one of them not getting a good mutation at that chance is much less than one of them having it
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman Leukocyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    56
    I happen to know that molecular biology has dessimated Darwin's theory
    Really? Because I'm studying molecular biology. They must be saving that bit for later on in the course.

    I read a really good paper not long ago where the molecular evolution of biological complexity was beautifully demonstrated by a simple series of mutations in the gene for an ancestral hormone receptor, giving rise to two receptors with distinct, specific binding properties. It disputed the argument commonly put forward by Creationists that the 'lock-and-key' specifity of a receptor for it's matching biosynthetic ligand is almost near impossible as it would require both parts to evolve simultaneously (as one is 'useless' without the other).

    I can't link to it here because you need to be an AAAS member to read it.

    So can you show us the mystery molecular biology that Darwin is rolling in his grave over?

    And PLEASE stop telling us to perform an experiment that demonstrates macroevolution. No one wants to spend a million years writing one paper.
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    We dont need experimeents, observations are equally good and those we have.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    Dismantling Darwinism is so absurdly simple. You guys are so lost. Here's my theory...tell me how you think this is incorrect:


    Each individual animal on earth is at one with his environment. It’s the REAL way things “evolve.” – individually. And it starts at the moment of conception, when a mental and physical “agreement” of sorts forms -- and the animal melts and molds himself into his surroundings. This is when traits are passed from mother to daughter, based on internal and external landscape. It often has nothing to do with genetics.

    I believe very early on in the development of the embryo, that the unformed organism begins to swirl and self-organize and receive feedback from the external world. It’s the beginning of a lifelong relationship. No doubt when we were developing in our mother’s womb, we learned to recognize our mother and father’s voices. Thus our minds began to be imprinted by their presence. In fact, the mind begins the process of receiving all kinds of stimuli…and this stimuli not only helps form mental and emotional traits, but physical traits as well. It’s the beginning of the journey between the mind and world, which both merge together.

    And the smaller the creature, the more quickly adaptive it is. Likewise, I suggest that animals that are more “liquid” (i.e. octopus, fish, etc) are very quickly adaptive. Thus a lion will be slower to adapt than adapt than a dog. A full-sized human is less adaptive than a baby. A bear is less adaptive than a fox. And this is proven by the fact that lots of smaller arctic animals can change fur color over the seasons (the hare, fox, weasel, squirrel, etc)…while deer and bears generally take longer – years possibly. But it can and does happen. I suggest every animal on earth has this ability, just in varying degrees and varying timeframes.

    But like I say, the smaller the creature, the more flexible it is. So is it any wonder that our lives started out in microscopic and in liquid form?...it’s when we were at our most adaptive state….it’s when we are not yet formed, yet have the ability to generate form based on internal signals and external stimuli. These signals start the process of transformation. This is how our destiny is decided, as proven here:

    http://www.sicb.org/meetings/2003/sy...lasticity.php3

    I submit that every animal develops different traits like the butterfly. And this is because all animals have a mind…and the mind, for instance, can help a lizard re-grow a lost limb or tail. The idea that the body can do this without the mind is absurd. There could be no regeneration of the tail if there’s not some sort of consciousness, thought, or intelligence behind it.

    Likewise countless creatures can suddenly change color – or emerge in a different color -- in response to an environmental change. There is no genetic change, it’s simply a result of a psychological phenomenon during development – or even later in life. I believe peppered moths are a perfect example. Of course you will never read this at a neo-darwin website because the truth is often withheld in such places. But like other insects, moths have the ability to quickly change colors without a long genetic journey or death to a large segment of their population. Mind over matter…not matter over mind. That’s how our world was created by God.

    http://ourfcs.friendscentral.org/mot...yphenism1.html

    (and this is why there are no intermediate fossils to be found..because "evolution" happens in development)

    But Darwin’s theory of evolution suggests that it’s matter over mind – and that animals change so they can become something different….I however, suggest that every animal changes so they can stay who they are…it’s the mind in action that keeps nature steady.

    Yet Darwinists have convinced themselves that 1 of 6 billion nucleotides in the genome can be selected for – and then passed down to offspring through sheer dumb luck. Yes, they have no problem believing that a lucky, unproven genetic miracle is heritable, yet they deny with all their might that a hormonally induced, nonrandom mutation cued by the environment can be heritable or can alter one’s phenotype. It’s absolutely laughable.
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    Quotes from Niles Eldredge from The Myths of Human Evolution

    It is now abundantly clear that species are real entities -- individuals -- in the fullest sense of the word. pg. 48 LOL!

    Change in this manner (gradualism) is just not found in the fossil record. pg. 48

    Darwin invented the myth that species were not real to convince the world of the nonmyth that evolution had occured. pg. 52

    Darwin's prediction that long-term evolutionary change should produce a systematic pattern of gradual, progressive change in the fossil record was faulty. pg. 53

    As we have seen in the previous chapter, the usual conception casts evolution as a gradual, steady process of adaptive change. And we have already seen that the fossil record conflicts with that view. pg. 57

    We're faced more with a great leap of faith -- that gradual, progressive, adaptive change underlies the general pattern of evolutionary change we see in the rocks -- than any hard evidence. pg. 57

    The notion of gradual, progressive change collides head-on with the stability seen in most fossil species...But we have greatly erred in predicting what the pattern of change should look like in the fossil record. Rather than taking the record literally, we have dismissed the lack of change within species as merely the artifacts of an imperfect record. But the time has come to ask, instead, if the record isn't telling us something that our theories out to be able to explain -- rather than explain away. pg. 58

    Boy this last quote sounds like something Sean Carrol said regarding biology!!


    the following quotes can be found in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland

    Quotes from Steven Jay Gould:

    The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress.

    We've got a thoery that selection controls the direction of variation in raw materials only. That's what's random, and it's the deterministic processes of selection that produce change and direction. So, in fact, random factors produce change. That is not what Darwin contended, as I understand.

    The fossil record is full of gaps and disconinuities, but they are all attributed to the notorious imperfection of the fossil record. The fossil record is imperfect, but I think that is not an adequate explanation...one thing it does show that cannot be attributed to its imperfection is that most species don't change...they may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it.


    Actually, lack of change IS stasis, not caused by stasis.

    Dr. Patterson on Gould and puncuated equilibria:

    Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. The support they get for that model comes from geneticists...LOL!!

    What is the evidence for continuity...you would have to say, there isn't any in the fossils of animals and man. The connection between them is in the mind.

    Richard Leakey:

    If I were going to draw a family tree for man, I would just draw a huge question mark.

    William R. Fix:

    As we have seen, there are numerous scientiists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence...

    George Gaylord Simpson:


    The regular absence of transitinal forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate...it is true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.

    Dr. Eldredge, when asked about the fish-to-amphibian transition:

    That I know nothing about.

    L.T. Moore

    The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone.

    Dr. Raup, when asked if the theory of evolution was falsifiable because no intermediate forms have been found:

    Well, whether it's valid or not, it's still possible to rationalize the lack of intermediates -- rationalize it by simply modifying the original Darwinian Theory.

    So, guys...is evolution GRADUAL OR NOT????
     

  60. #59  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    The fact is, you guys' wild guesses about evolution is a big, fat joke because I happen to know that molecular biology has dessimated Darwin's theory.
    I was just wondering what you meant here. (Actually, I was wondering what you meant everywhere, since you are posting a lot of words in an order which renders their semantic content close to zero.)
    Do you mean
    a) Molecular biology has disseminated Darwin's theory. This seems a rather clumsy way of expressing the important contribution of biochemistry in extending and affirming the theory of evolution.
    b) Molecular biology has decimated Darwin's theory. i.e. it has destroyed 10% of it. Which 10% did you feel it had destroyed.
    8)
    Lack, if you wish to be taken seriously you will debate one point at a time. Leaping from pillar to post may impress your uneducated friends, it turning you into more of a laughing stock than you were at the outset.

    You said you wished to debate evolution with the evolutionists on this forum. You are actually running away from that debate with this scatter gun approach. I am not certain whether it is deliberate - in which case you are heading for a locked thread, or just naive enthusiasm. I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter. But, please, from this point forward focus on a single aspect and debate that one thoroughly. The choice of which aspect is up to you, but please make that choice.
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Dismantling Darwinism is so absurdly simple. You guys are so lost.
    You havent, and its you who are lost

    This is when traits are passed from mother to daughter, based on internal and external landscape.
    go and educate then so you get smarter kids, this is not how life worx

    It often has nothing to do with genetics.
    has everything to do with genetics, if i mutate your genome im ready to bet you will die

    A full-sized human is less adaptive than a baby.
    indivdualy, maybe. specisaly, no becuase they are the same species.

    And this is proven by the fact that lots of smaller arctic animals can change fur color over the seasons (the hare, fox, weasel, squirrel, etc)…while deer and bears generally take longer – years possibly.
    they can becuase their genome tells that they can, bears probebly cant becuase their genes dont have the right proteins to do that. hippie

    But it can and does happen. I suggest every animal on earth has this ability, just in varying degrees and varying timeframes.
    change fur? oh no, not all. only those who NEEDS. every other species dont becuase they dont need to, why waste energy on proteins that isnt used?

    I submit that every animal develops different traits like the butterfly. And this is because all animals have a mind…and the mind, for instance, can help a lizard re-grow a lost limb or tail. The idea that the body can do this without the mind is absurd. There could be no regeneration of the tail if there’s not some sort of consciousness, thought, or intelligence behind it.
    yes it can, tis absurd it requries a mind. Becuase that isnt neural based. its protein based, when taht tail gets off it creates proteins that tells the other cells to regrow that limb, remove the brain, keep the lizard going and it will happen anyway.

    Likewise countless creatures can suddenly change color – or emerge in a different color -- in response to an environmental change. There is no genetic change, it’s simply a result of a psychological phenomenon during development – or even later in life.
    becuase those genes arent active then, a gene can be inactive where it does nothing, do your ear cells produce the same thigns as your liver does? but they have the same genes? becuase those genes are inactive there

    I believe peppered moths are a perfect example. Of course you will never read this at a neo-darwin website because the truth is often withheld in such places. But like other insects, moths have the ability to quickly change colors without a long genetic journey or death to a large segment of their population. Mind over matter…not matter over mind. That’s how our world was created by God.
    see previus

    But Darwin’s theory of evolution suggests that it’s matter over mind – and that animals change so they can become something different….I however, suggest that every animal changes so they can stay who they are…it’s the mind in action that keeps nature steady.
    mind?!?!?!?! WHAT ABOUT THE PLANTS AND BACTERIA?

    Yet Darwinists have convinced themselves that 1 of 6 billion nucleotides in the genome can be selected for – and then passed down to offspring through sheer dumb luck. Yes, they have no problem believing that a lucky, unproven genetic miracle is heritable, yet they deny with all their might that a hormonally induced, nonrandom mutation cued by the environment can be heritable or can alter one’s phenotype. It’s absolutely laughable.
    you dont seem to read post now do you? if you were here i would print this paper, make you eat it and then threw it up and then make you read it.

    Dumb luck? oh no, the mutation in itself is random, the selection isnt. understand that.

    we have no problem thinking the phenotype can change, genotype and phenotype is different. genotype decieds phenotype, but there can be many pheno types in one genotype

    lackadaisical, could you please from now on read the posts? and also understand them? you claim we say the phenotype dont change, but i can poiint atleast 10 places in this topic where we agree on that
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    68
    Lets test your hypothesis that an animal can control its phenotype with its mind...

    Think very hard that your hair is green. Think that for 3 hours each day and tell us when your hair actually does turn green (provided you wash regularely and the green isn't algae or some other foreign object).

    Another way to test it is to take a butterfly chrysalis and to change its outer surroundings...as luck would have it, I have a monarch chrysalis in the garage...in nature, a chrysalis would be exposed to light whenever the sun is up...in the garage, the chrysalis will see the light of day for maybe 30 minutes tops each day (and split up)...They also are in a more stable-temperature environment...

    Would you expect the developing butterfly to develop differently? I have raised monarch butterflies from egg to maturity for a number of years and I assure you that nothing has changed...

    They are small, they are light, they are put into a radically different environment...but they come out the same anyway...

    The parents shouldn't, by your reasoning, affect the individual at all because it is laid in an egg, outside of the mother's reach totally.

    Another creature, because you could say about the monarch that the mother, as she laid the egg, imprinted the individual to make it fit the naturally observed phenotype.

    I also have raised lacewings. As we speak, I have a bottle with a few lacewing larva in the garage. I caught the females, let the eggs which were laid in a radically different environment (a small, plastic bottle w/o leaves, in a dark, warmer place) develop. All adults have come out with the commonly observed phenotype without any visible differences. This is a case where multiple generations have been in captivity, yet there is no difference. If you don't know the size of a lacewing, think of it as about 1/5 the mass of a monarch butterfly...

    There are new stresses (smaller space, more individuals in the local area) and life is also easier in some ways (food provided, no predation)...the generation time is a few months...yet there is /absolutely no/ difference between my home-grown lacewings from home-grown lacewings and the lacewings I can catch in the wild.

    I would say that that is a pretty solid case against your hypothesis.

    -Ajain
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    damn right, but he is probebly not reading your post, he enver read anyone else
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    I don't have alot of time to post right now but regarding your butterfly experiment, I have got proof to show otherwise -- the link that I gave....thus I see no reason to take your word for it.

    And I think you guys are getting all confused about DNA. Here's what I think: I think that DNA is a fraud -- or at least it's severely overhyped. This is proven by the fact that mice and humans are 99% the same genetically.

    See the problem is this -- and here's the little secret that your teachers forgot to teach you:

    you guys have crowned DNA as KING. It is the end-all/be-all. It's the beginning and end. It's the govenor of life. It lives in isolation and thus determines everything. You admit that DNA reproduces itself and produces proteins...and you deny that proteins reproduce themselves and are able to modify the DNA that encoded them. In otherwords, information goes from DNA to DNA and from DNA to proteins, but it never makes the return trip from proteins back to DNA. Thus, the egg makes the chicken, but the chicken doesn't turn around and make the egg.

    It's a laughable head-in-the-sand version of life. Life always feeds itself off itself -- but you guys have covered your eyes with your hands and are singing "la la la la la" so that you do not have to see/hear the truth.

    The fact is, your little gradualism fairytale is FALSE. Random mutations that add beneficial information to the genome is FALSE. The given role of Natural Selection is FALSE. The role you have given DNA is FALSE. Yet, the rhetoric continues as if there is no problem. You people need to open your eyes and look around. You are living a miracle -- yet the only way you can justify your atheist religion is to deny your own miraculous life.

    Isn't the truth WONDERFUL?
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    It's a laughable head-in-the-sand version of life. Life always feeds itself off itself -- but you guys have covered your eyes with your hands and are singing "la la la la lan" so that you cannot see/hear the truth.
    It is truly ironic that lackadaisical of all people would say this. Ironic, yet expected.
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    This is proven by the fact that mice and humans are 99% the same genetically
    nope, you are confusing mouses with chimps

    Code:
    You admit that DNA reproduces itself and produces proteins...and you deny that proteins reproduce themselves and are able to modify the DNA that encoded them
    nope, they are both but the protein is in turn controlled by the DNA
    life is just a extremly conntrolled chemistry

    but it never makes the return trip from proteins back to DNA
    becuase the protein have work to do. there is protein that chops dna off, insert new bases etc. its well known, this is how virus controll in cells work, or atleast bacteria

    It's a laughable head-in-the-sand version of life. Life always feeds itself off itself -- but you guys have covered your eyes with your hands and are singing "la la la la la" so that you cannot see/hear the truth.
    it is ironic, why ar eyou saying it is us when its obviusly you?

    The fact is, your little gradualism fairytale is FALSE. Random mutations that add beneficial information to the genome is FALSE. The given role of Natural Selection is FALSE. The role you have given DNA is FALSE. Yet, the rhetoric continues as if there is no problem.
    its TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE. and has been proven

    You people need to open your eyes and look around
    please dont project your crap on us

    once again, i hate people who know nothing and by that think they know everything and therefor claim something is wrong. Science goes for how it is, not how they want it to be
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    I don't have alot of time to post right now but regarding your butterfly experiment, I have got proof to show otherwise -- the link that I gave....thus I see no reason to take your word for it.
    I realize that that hormoneal activity can be affected by the environment and that these hormones can determine the development of an individual, but what builds hormones? proteins! what causes the proteins to be created? other proteins which act as sensors! How do these other proteins go about starting the production of the hormone-building proteins? Sending a message (by releasing a chemical into the cell) to ALLOW A BIT OF DNA TO BE TRANSLATED INTO RNA THEN INTO A PROTEIN (sorry for the all caps, but I doubt lackadaisical would realize what I just wrote otherwise)...

    Now, therefore, these phenotypic variations are caused because a certain gene is unlocked when a certain condition is at hand, then the unlocked gene produces messenger molecules ("hormones") into the other cells which then unlock the bits of their DNA to allow the phenotype to appear as it is...it all depends on the DNA.

    Saying DNA is insignificant to an individual's development is as dire of an error as saying that the world is flat to an astronomer, or saying that atoms don't /actually/ exist to a chemist.

    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    And I think you guys are getting all confused about DNA. Here's what I think: I think that DNA is a fraud -- or at least it's severely overhyped. This is proven by the fact that mice and humans are 99% the same genetically.
    I have already explained that mice and humans are 99% the same physiologically! We have the same systems, they all work in the same way, and we act very similarily. Also, I think that the number 99 is a mis-representation. Mice and human share 99% of our genes, but realize that a mouse's DNA is around 400 million base pairs shorter (see http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...L&type=science ) Therefore, genes are similar, the end-result of the gene is likely similar (if not the same), but the proteins are different and have changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    See the problem is this -- and here's the little secret that your teachers forgot to teach you:

    you guys have crowned DNA as KING. It is the end-all/be-all. It's the beginning and end. It's the govenor of life. It lives in isolation and thus determines everything. You admit that DNA reproduces itself and produces proteins...and you deny that proteins reproduce themselves and are able to modify the DNA that encoded them. In otherwords, information goes from DNA to DNA and from DNA to proteins, but it never makes the return trip from proteins back to DNA. Thus, the egg makes the chicken, but the chicken doesn't turn around and make the egg.
    OH NO! You found out about our secret?!

    do you also believe that the CIA is out to get us and that the government is secretly communist? (did you know that the world is only 6,000 years old?). I'm sick of people who assume that the scientific community is hiding something because of once existing misconceptions. If you have heard of it, the people who are calling the shots in experiments have heard of it and already compensated for it.

    Lets talk about a serious fault in /your/ assumptions above...where is the RNA? it has become shockingly clear in the past few years that RNA is /extremely/ important to life. RNA serves other purposes than to just hold information...RNA can act as a ribozyme (doing work like a protein...even self replicating)...RNA can form into double-stranded molecules which are relatively stable and might possibly act as a cache of information to seeds of plants...RNA can fold into itslef and be cut up to act as a cell's defense against viral RNA which was inserted into the cell...RNA is GREAT and you just /totally/ ignored it. The only equivolent to what you just did that I can think of is talking about how amazing the WWI technology was, how cool the middle ages were, and completely ignoring the industrial revolution.

    We /know/ that proteins can affect how DNA works...you have made a "laughable" assumption in assuming that we DON'T. But do realize that proteins don't go to DNA and say "we just got the signal to change that "attagcgcgcgcgcaa" to "ccgttttaaccgaag""...NO! proteins go to DNA and say "we just got the signal that gene TAS2R38 is not to be turned on, but genes SMA332 and TYZZ99 are to go into double time." With the exception of mutations, meiosis errors (causing trisomy, monosomy, and other likely lethal problems), and the occasional human tinkering, DNA stays the same from one organism to it's progeny (which is not to say that one parent passes on all of his/her DNA...it is to say that if you look at the bits that the progeny got from mom then compare them to the corresponding genes in mom, you'll see it is the same except for a few changes [which you could likely count on your fingers])...

    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    It's a laughable head-in-the-sand version of life. Life always feeds itself off itself -- but you guys have covered your eyes with your hands and are singing "la la la la la" so that you do not have to see/hear the truth.
    Your suggested form of "life" is /way/ too wishy-washy to stand to reason. By your reasoning, DNA can't decide what it wants to do...where, then, does inheritable information come from?! If DNA can go through a total transformation between 2 generations, where entire genes are literally eliminated from the genome, what is constant? Although it is realized that such faults can occur, it is not a mechanism of life, it is an error of meiosis which causes, among many other syndromes, downs syndrome in humans.

    You have covered your own eyes to the brilliant simplicity of DNA...it isn't some complicated form where proteins change DNA which then changes proteins, it is the simple explanation that DNA, in its entirety, always just is. Although genes will be turned on and off, the DNA will still be in its whole form. The DNA of the cone cells in your eyes holds all the information that all the DNA in your body has exactly. Same for the DNA in the cells that make up your kidney.


    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    The fact is, your little gradualism fairytale is FALSE. Random mutations that add beneficial information to the genome is FALSE. The given role of Natural Selection is FALSE. The role you have given DNA is FALSE. Yet, the rhetoric continues as if there is no problem. You people need to open your eyes and look around. You are living a miracle -- yet the only way you can justify your atheist religion is to deny your own miraculous life.

    Isn't the truth WONDERFUL?
    gradualism is what we see, but in the scheme of things, organisms evolve quite rapidly (meaning maybe in the window of a half million years two populations can speciate)...then there are times when no evolution happens, because the changes that occur can't perfect the creature that much more for its specific niche in its environment.

    Random mutations that add beneficial information to the genome are TRUE...I have observed them with my own eyes. I already told you this story, so deal with the truth.

    The given role of natural selection is TRUE, or else there would be no judge of a beneicial mutation...without a judge, DNA would wander slowly and aimlessly to nowhere...there is always natural selection, its just that when creatures aren't rapidly changing, this natural selection is "running at the same speed" as the creature (neither prompting an evolution, nor allowing a de-evolution). The role you understand that we have given DNA is FALSE, because you are misinformed...we realize that DNA is not the single authority on a cell's development, but that RNA does a lot as well...look it up and inform yourself.

    ...yet you continue on as if you were a global authority on how life /really/ changes. You need to open your eyes and some recent books to realize what is happening to science...we have realized some previous falts, the same ones which are the basis for your incorrect theory.

    Isn't the truth WONDERFUL?

    -Ajain
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    68
    And, lackadaisical, as to the disproof of experiments, I would suggest that to disprove my "experiment" (which is actually more based on watching monarch caterpillars grow and lacewings develop)...

    1) you could find evidence of a similar experiment done which has yielded other results (meaning, same species, similar variables, different results)...
    2) you could show that my methods for running the experiment somehow make the results invalid (which you are highly unlikely to do because the only necessary factor to take into account is to introduce the eggs [or the mother, in the lacewing's case] into a new environment and let them develop there)...
    3) you could run the experiment yourself to try to get other results...if you are looking for monarch caterpillars they can be found on the underside of damaged milkweed leaves (just invert the plant), then you can put them inside a jar (WITH HOLES) and supply them with milkweed leaves when the old ones have dried up or run out (I suggest you put the ends of the milkweed stalks into water, but make it so that the caterpillar cannot in any way fall into the water...they aren't the smartest)...don't forget to put it into a different environment! In about 2-3 weeks the caterpillar (Depending on size) should form a little bundle which hangs from the top of the jar...in about a week or so, a butterfly will come out...compare that with a normal monarch butterfly...

    as for lacewings, find a lacewing with a fat abdomen...I suggest finding a few as some aren't as fertile...put them in a glass jar with a damp rag on the bottem (they don't eat much as adults)...in a few days you should see eggs on the ends of little hairs...once the eggs hatch, supply the little alligator-like critters with an abundance of aphids or they will begin eating eachother...don't forget to vary the conditions! in a while you will get lacewing adults...

    ---

    unless you have done one of the three things above and it points to contrary information, I sustain that my "experiment" is valid.

    -Ajain
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Freshman Leukocyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    56
    In otherwords, information goes from DNA to DNA and from DNA to proteins, but it never makes the return trip from proteins back to DNA. Thus, the egg makes the chicken, but the chicken doesn't turn around and make the egg.

    It's a laughable head-in-the-sand version of life. Life always feeds itself off itself -- but you guys have covered your eyes with your hands and are singing "la la la la la" so that you do not have to see/hear the truth.
    Firstly, as others have said, transcription of DNA is heavily regulated by PROTEINS, but I still can't see what your point is. So because (from your interpretation) "the chicken doesn't turn around and make the egg", evolution is a farce. That's good reasoning. Lackadaisal, you need to learn how to argue intelligently. You're simply saying that because the central dogma of protein production doesn't fit in with your "life always feeds itself off itself" revelation (even though it actually does, but I guess that doesn't matter) then you've somehow proved your point. You're basically MAKING STUFF UP - you're talking about swirling, melding, molding, metaphysical, miracle feedbacks - it's sounding like wizardry - and then saying that modern biological theory doesn't agree with your own ideas, so it must be wrong.

    Your butterfly miracle is nothing but biochemistry. Plant seeds can choose appropriate times to germinate, by measuring the daytime hours, detecting a recent bushfire, etc. - do seeds have a mental and physical "agreement" with the outside world that's telling them what to do? No. Again, biochemistry.

    And in response to your point (and pageful of one-liner, out-of-context quotes) about gradualism in evolution - it's common theory that evolution occurs in surges or waves - ie, a rapid period of evolutionary change followed by very little for a very long time. This is due to a combination of phenomena such as natural selection, genetic drift, random allelic fluctuations, non-random mating, etc. acting synergistically. Please stop using the fossil record as your backrest.
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    he isnt going to read this
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by pseudoscience guy
    I think that DNA is a fraud -- or at least it's severely overhyped. This is proven by the fact that mice and humans are 99% the same genetically.
    I'm am so glad this thread is in the pseudoscience subforum.

    I have to wonder, why do the kooks bother to come to science forums to begin with if they make assertions like this. I'm dying to see this guy's point-by-point refutation of the countless years of research and testing that minds of academia have built upon.

    I've a feeling it is not forthcoming, however.
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman Leukocyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    56
    I'm dying to see this guy's point-by-point refutation of the countless years of research and testing that minds of academia have built upon
    Exactly. There are thousands and thousands of papers written on evolutionary biology, evolutionary genetics and evolutionary molecular biology, all with sound evidence and conclusions, and lackadaisal is happy to sit here arrogantly calling us all idiots because we don't buy his leaky, unsupported, unresearched idea that goes against every painstakingly researched piece of evidence that supports Darwinian evolution.

    If lackadaisal is professionally or academically involved in science, then I think he's being a bit disrespectful.
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    If lackadaisal is professionally or academically involved in science, then I think he's being a bit disrespectful.
    its not possible that he is involved in any real science
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    If lackadaisal is professionally or academically involved in science, then I think he's being a bit disrespectful.
    its not possible that he is involved in any real science
    That's one thing that I'm sure we can all agree on.
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    of course, i am allways right (kidding)
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  76. #75  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Attention Lackadaisical

    Official Warning

    Lackadaisical I have suggested, I have requested and now I am requiring the following:

    Focus on one aspect of this discussion and debate it to a conclusion, or an impasse. Then move on to the next.

    Do not use a scatter gun approach of quotations and claims and unsubstantiated denials.

    Do not ignore the detailed arguments presented by the other posters.


    You claim to want to debate evolution with evolutionists. You have that opportunity here, courtesy of The Science Forum. Take that opportunity. Do not abuse it, as you have been, by proselytising and emoting. Enter into a proper discussion, one aspect at a time. Otherwise this thread gets locked.

    Please acknowledge that you have read and understood this post.

    Ophiolite
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Right on Ophiolite
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species...ial_speciation

    here is a experiment performed to create new species that were succesfull. one species became 2
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    He displays all of the classic creationist argument techniques: attempting to jump around from one subject to the next whenever it becomes clear that he has no idea what he’s talking about, making vague claims that rely on fuzzy definitions, throwing out complex arguments that he doesn’t really understand and so has to abandon whenever anyone responds, etc.
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    i concure
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    Here's my full hypothesis on how organisms REALLY evolve...(and I have backup):...by the way...this will be my last post here. Good luck, everyone. Tom
    -----------------------

    "At any rate, I am convinced that He [God] does not play dice". --Albert Einstein

    I do not pretend to know how God works. However, I have been on a quest to find some real answers. I thrive on the truth. I need to know it. And given the available evidence, I can conclude that God does not play roulette with His Creation. This post is the culmination of what I have read and learned from those of whom I consider reputable sources. (I will give credit to quotes, assertions and ideas by name)

    Please keep in mind that even though these are my words, any words that I write stem from ideas from those who are much more knowledgeable than me. I in no way want anyone to think I am the originator of any of these ideas….I am merely consolidating and passing along the data I have learned from many others.

    In this post you will learn how traits are actually formed and inherited. Anyone who wants to claim the following miraculous abilities were evolved will be sorely disappointed, as this notion will be disproven towards the end of the post. The love and power and beauty of God’s awesome creation is about to be at least partially revealed…the following information will not only blow the average person away, but it will change the way you think about everything regarding life and genetics. Science, indeed has lead us non-scientists astray…and I have found the source of this deception, which I will now present:
    -------------------

    Molecular biology has learned it is not the genetic code that accounts for the difference between the mouse and the fly or between a virus and a chicken. This, evidently has been known for quite a while:

    "Biochemical changes do not seem to be a main driving force in the diversification of living organisms…It is not biochemical novelty that generated diversification of organisms…What distinguishes a butterfly from a lion, a hen from a fly, or a worm from a whale is much less a difference in chemical constitutes than in the organization and the distribution of these constituents." Francois Jacob, a founding father of biochemical genetics, 1977.

    "The researchers who cracked the genetic code immediately realized that it was universal". Guiseppe Sermonti

    In 1989, Hox genes (clusters of genes) were discovered in mice and worms. Soon after, it was realized that every creature on earth was constructed with the same clusters of genes. However these universal gene clusters manifested themselves in different animals, and thus, were responsible for different regions.

    "For example, the same gene that’s responsible for the tail of the mouse, as well is responsible for the rear extremities of the grasshopper". Sermonti

    So what is it that makes a mouse a mouse, a fly a fly? The fact is, no one knows….and from what I understand they will never know. One thing that is known, however, is that DNA is not the dictator of life that was once thought. It no longer assumes the role as life’s grand generator of genetic information.

    "It is not the genes that elicit nascent form, but the nascent form that selects the genes and recruits them for its program" Sermonti


    It’s clear to me that contemporary science has only one eye open to how nature really works. Instead of natural observations, science, instead has an obsession to dig below the surface and focus on genetics. It’s a bizarre fixation on the flask and test tube. But there’s a reason for this odd diversion…and it’s because nature – as it truly operates – shatters theTheory of Evolution. Thus, the truth about how nature operates is very difficult to find. Yet, through the Lord I have come to learn that the truth is really a very simple – yet incredibly mind-blowing concept.

    Every individual animal on earth is at one with his environment. It’s the REAL way things “evolve.” – individually. And it starts at the moment of conception, when a mental and physical “agreement” of sorts forms -- and the animal melts and molds himself into his surroundings. This is when traits are passed from mother to daughter and/or formed by its habitat. It has nothing to do with genetics. Instead, specific traits are but responses to external stimuli that act on hormones. Idea from Lee Spetner

    Very early on in the development of the embryo, the unformed organism begins a miraculous swirl of unexplainable self-organization. It also immediately starts receiving feedback. This feedback not only stems from its immediate surroundings, but from the external world as well -- through parental hormones. (Lee Spetner) It’s the beginning of a lifelong relationship. No doubt when we were developing in our mother’s womb, we learned to recognize our mother and father’s voices. Thus our minds began to be imprinted by their loving presence. In fact, the mind begins the process of receiving all kinds of stimuli…and this stimuli not only helps form mental and emotional traits, but physical traits as well. “"The developing embryo responds with little shocks and shivers as these discharges go about shaping the body".” (Sermonti) It’s the marvelous beginning of a relationship between a new life and the outside world.

    "The mind and the world arise together" Fransico Varela

    "Morphogenesis is a process that depends on stresses and relaxations" . Lev Belousso

    "The soul is that excitable little something that awakens when the sperm and egg embrace In the early embryo, forces are activated that evoke the form of the body, bringing it into relationship with the outside world". Sermonti

    And the smaller the creature, the more quickly adaptive it is. Likewise, animals that are more “liquid” (i.e. octopus, fish, etc) are very quickly adaptive. Thus a lion will be slower to adapt than adapt than a dog. A full-sized human is less adaptive than a baby. A bear is less adaptive than a fox. And this is proven by the fact that lots of smaller arctic animals can change fur color over the seasons (the hare, fox, weasel, squirrel, etc)…while deer and bears generally take longer – years possibly. But it can and does happen. I suggest every animal on earth has this ability, just in varying degrees and varying timeframes.

    http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/700-799/nb706.htm

    "Life is made up of countless, unexpressed designs for life". Goethe

    But like I say, the smaller the creature, the more flexible it is. So is it any wonder that our lives started out in microscopic and in liquid form?...it’s when we were at our most adaptive state….it’s when we are not yet formed, yet have the ability to generate multiple forms based on internal signals and external stimuli. These signals start the process of transformation. This is partly how our destiny is decided, as proven here:

    http://www.sicb.org/meetings/2003/sy...lasticity.php3

    I submit that every animal develops different traits like the butterfly. And this is because all animals have consciousness and inherent intelligence in their genomes – and this intelligence works off external cues, which, for example, can help a lizard change colors or re-grow a lost limb or tail. The idea that the body can do this without the mind or internal intelligence is absurd. There could be no regeneration of the tail if there’s not some sort of consciousness, thought, or intelligence behind it.

    The fact is, countless creatures can quickly change color – or emerge in a different color -- in response to an environmental change. There is no genetic change, it’s simply the result of a psychological phenomenon during development – or even later in life. I believe peppered moths are a perfect example. Of course you will never read this at a neo-darwin website because the reality of morphological plasticity is often withheld in such places. But like mammals, fish, lizards, frogs and other insects, moths have the ability to quickly change colors without a long genetic journey or death to a large segment of their population. Mind over matter…not matter over mind. That’s how our world was Created.

    http://ourfcs.friendscentral.org/mot...yphenism1.html


    But Darwin’s theory of evolution suggests that it’s matter over mind – and that animals change so they can become something different….I however, suggest that every animal changes so they can stay who they are…it’s the mind in action that keeps nature steady. It’s much like when my kids first learned to walk. There was lots of wobbling from side-to-side going on, but it was all that wobbling that allowed them to stay on their feet. It’s no different with animals….animals wobble back and forth physically so they can avoid falling over (extinction). And since scientists cannot find even ONE airtight intermediate fossil, then I suggest that this is all there is to so-called “evolution.” Ultimately, very little is left to chance…Nature does not operate by flipping coins.


    "Things are as they are because they were as they were". Rupert Sheldrake

    Darwinists may try to claim that these abilities were evolved. But the problem lies here: DNA can no more create evolutionary change in animals than a single, unfertilized egg can create a baby:

    "One of the fundamental principles of molecular biology (now enshrined as Central Dogma) assigned to DNA the role of absolute governor of the life and inheritance for the cell, and consequently for the organism. The Central Dogma proclaimed: DNA reproduces itself and produces proteins; proteins do not reproduce themselves and are unable to modify the DNA that encoded them. In other words, the information proceeds from DNA to DNA and from DNA to proteins, but it never makes the return journey from proteins to DNA……The egg makes the hen; the hen doesn’t really make the egg – she merely lays eggs that derive directly form the egg that made her. In the new molecular version, DNA was the egg and proteins the hen"…..Sermonti

    "DNA is not the primary container of genetic information". Sermonti

    So what does this mean? It means that since DNA is neither the starting point, nor the ending point. Which means it could not have played the role in evolution as Darwinists claim. DNA is merely a part of the never-ending circle of life. It’s merely a spoke in the genetic wheel; a curve in the spiral of life.

    "God is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere" Empedocles

    "According to these observations, genetic information is not like a ward where babies are born, but rather like a registry office where citizens can check their vital statistics and make them complete again if any have been lost". Sermonti

    And as it turns out, traits such as color, pigmentation, eye color, hair color, etc are often modified by only one gene, one nucleotide of over 5 billion. This would require only a simple mutation (genetic switch with a locking trigger) in the developing embryo to change the organism:

    A cue from the environment can trigger the switch, turning a gene ON or OFF. The ON/OFF state of the gene will maintain itself even through cell division. A new trigger from another environmental cue can reset the gene. Spetner

    "In the model of the heritable switch, a change in the environment sends a signal to each member of the population. This signal activates a genetic command in each individual to call up a preprogrammed subroutine, If the new environment does not last long, the population will revert to its previous state. But if the new environment persists for a long enough time, then even after the environment changes, the population will remain in its new state. The new state is carried into future generations, and to this extent is heritable. The heritability is, however not absolute. A different cue can make the population change again. But the longer the environmental cue lasts, the more nearly heritable the effect appears.". Spetner

    But like I said before, today’s science seems to be obsessed on genes, while turning a blind eye on real nature. And the reason for this is because a few lingering scientists are holding out faith that by studying mere genes they can somehow/someday learn to construct a new species of animal. But this is proving to be impossible. And the reason it’s impossible is because even though there are such thing as “blue eye genes” and “dark skin genes,” there are no such things as “mouse genes” or “cat genes.” And that’s because the greatest differences in life are not dictated by genes. Instead, genes are dictated by life’s differences. The sun is not orbiting the earth, the earth is orbiting the sun. Science is has everything backwards.

    Thus, in order for a fish to evolve into a reptile, the internal program that dictates the genes for a fish, must somehow change into a program that dictates the genes for a reptile. This, of course, is absurd and defies all rationality. Thus, evolution, as we used to know it, is dead.

    "The potential for adaptivity to the environment already exists in the genome. The environment just triggers it". Spetner

    "And, How manifold are Your works, Eternal, You made them all with wisdom"" (Ps 104:24).

    My hypothesis is that individuals evolve....not populations. Thus the Theory of Evolution is dead.

    Books of reference:

    Lee Spetner, Phd : Not By Chance

    Giuseppe Sermonti, Phd: Why is a Fly not a Horse?
     

  82. #81  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    Here's my full hypothesis on how organisms REALLY evolve...(and I have backup):...by the way...this will be my last post here. Good luck, everyone. Tom
    I shall assume that even though this is your last post that you will return to gauge reaction.

    Let me ask you this. Do you not feel a certain sense of shame given the extent of your premeditated deceit?
    It is abundantly clear that you did not wish to conduct a debate with evolutionists, as you claimed a number of times, but merely wished to promote your wild conjectures.

    Don't you feel that approach to be intellectually dishonest? Do you feel that anyone using such dishonest tactics deserves to be taken seriously?
    I am just interested in your views on this. You don't need to post anything about evolution - your ideas are so laughable as to be largely beyond discussion - but I would like to hear an explanation for your behaviour.

    For someone who "thrives on truth" it has been singularily absent from your contributions here.
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    I hate debating actually...instead I'd rather exchange ideas.....debating is often fruitless because it quickly evolves into rhetoric. I'm sorry you find my ideas laughable. The fact is all you can do is handwave...and your gradualistic handwave goes against all common sense and fossil evidence.

    I'm actually taking the time to construct a valid hypothesis that fits with real life. Take care.
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    lackadaisical, what do u have against evolution acctualy? and do you think humans are special? and why are you ignoring posts and evidence?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    I hate debating actually...instead I'd rather exchange ideas.....debating is often fruitless because it quickly evolves into rhetoric.
    On page one of this thread, you said: "Why is this in the Pseudo-science section? Are scientists/biologists in here afraid to debate me about biology?"

    Its in the pseudoscience section because of the reasons mentioned by other posters. But you dared others to debate you, then you refused to present any logical or reasoned arguments that are based on any educated perspective. I'd say the only source of rhetoric is coming from you.

    A survey of the thread reveals that rather than settle on any one point and debate it to completion, you chose to just keep bouncing around from topic to topic, giving no real logical or reasoned argument for any.

    It would seem that the scientists and creationists weren't "afraid to debate" you about biology, but you're afraid to see the debates to conclusion. Concluding, in your case, would mean educating yourself through the information these posters were good enough to provide, and by trying to understanding the logic (or attempted logic) behind the various talking points you copy/pasted from creationist sites.

    As is the case with many who want to believe the dogma provided by the creationist mythology, you seem to have discovered a source of "talking points" from a creationist site. One thing that's important to consider is that probably each and every one of these talking points has been thoroughly refuted elsewhere. This would lead one to question, why do these "talking points" still exist and why are they still being used by creationists?

    The answer is to keep the waters muddy. It doesn't matter to creationists if they have no positive logical arguments for their position; that their points are refuted at each turn; or that they are caught in lie after deception after balderdash. The hardcore creationists know that credulous members of their cults will come forward after "discovering" their tired and worn rhetoric and find a place like a science forum to try their hand in the "debate."

    Truly, it isn't a debate at all. There just simply is no logical position for the creationist argument.
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    lackadaisical, why not just admit you are a creationist
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    68
    Although I enjoyed thinking through each of the hurtles, it was getting a bit rediculously long towards these last few pages (especially when no attempt at refuting the points was presented in the long, final post), which prompts me to say...

    Good Riddence and may God have mercy on your soul, Lackadaisical.

    -Ajain
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    why do you say that?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    68
    its a nasty trick to lead people on, half-answering half-read posts, then to decide that when there is piling information, to just post a few quotes and leave...I was expecting not to come to a final resolve on this as, inevitably, both sides will be equally stubborn, but lackadaisical didn't even mention 1/2 of the posts on this thread.

    -Ajain
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    nope, it is pathetic
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  91. #90  
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162


    Maybe he'll return with his "valid hypothesis" and then we can all get a really good chuckle :wink:.




    J0N
    :-)
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    idiots, they exist so smart people can have a good laugh
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    Well I'm glad I've accomplished something on this board....at least I've given you guys a laugh. Maybe this will make you laugh more:
    ------------------------------------------------
    Sometimes when you hear something long enough you start to believe it.

    Evolutionists have been ridiculing lamarckism for the past 100 years. But something about this theory even intrigued Darwin.

    I have been long fascinated with skin pigmentation. The thing is, since I know that darwinism is false, pigmentation -- along with every trait -- must somehow be acquired by offspring. I have a pretty good feeling that many new traits are formed in the egg/womb as I explained a few days ago.......it's merely development of specific traits based on internal/external environments, stimulated by hormones.)


    But the concept of acquired traits -- physical traits that are passed directly down from parent to child is still knawing at me. I cannot prove it yet because there are so few -- if any -- such studies. But then again there seems to be virtually no studies done in any field of biology that would disprove Toe.

    The following quote says from Sermonti says it all:

    One of the fundamental principles of molecular biology (now enshrined as Central Dogma) assigned to DNA the role of absolute governor of the life and inheritance for the cell, and consequently for the organism. The Central Dogma proclaimed: DNA reproduces itself and produces proteins; proteins do not reproduce themselves and are unable to modify the DNA that encoded them. In other words, the information proceeds from DNA to DNA and from DNA to proteins, but it never makes the return journey from proteins to DNA……The egg makes the hen; the hen doesn’t really make the egg – she merely lays eggs that derive directly form the egg that made her. In the new molecular version, DNA was the egg and proteins the hen…..Sermonti

    See the reason you evolutionists don't admit that information makes a round trip within the body is because you do not want to admit that acquired characteristics can be inherited....which is what this would indicate. I believe this is why you have long shouted-down larmarcksim -- which basically says the mechanism of inheritance (the genes contained in our sexual cells) can be effected by the external environment. This is a mortal blow to your theory. Thus, you insist that the genetic system is a one-way street. Information can go out...but it can't come back in, and it certainly cannot be passed on and/or used to alter the characteristics of a future offspring. Evolutionists insist on chance. And this is the anti-chance in action.

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...-genetics.html

    Mendelian inheritance, the central tenet of genetics, is under attack from a few scrawny weeds that have not read the textbooks. The weeds are somehow inheriting DNA sequences from their grandparents that neither of their parents possessed - which is supposed to be impossible.

    See, with acquired characteristics, my thought is the following: Traits such as muscle-building or any other physically acquired trait is probably not able to be acquired. However, traits that are stimulated by hormones could very possibly be acquired. This could include pigmentation, fur color, scale color, etc. And it may be even more powerful than that..........

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog...ostgenes.shtml

    At the heart of this new field is a simple but contentious idea – that genes have a 'memory'. That the lives of your grandparents – the air they breathed, the food they ate, even the things they saw – can directly affect you, decades later, despite your never experiencing these things yourself. And that what you do in your lifetime could in turn affect your grandchildren.

    The conventional view is that DNA carries all our heritable information and that nothing an individual does in their lifetime will be biologically passed to their children. To many scientists, epigenetics amounts to a heresy, calling into question the accepted view of the DNA sequence – a cornerstone on which modern biology sits.

    Epigenetics adds a whole new layer to genes beyond the DNA. It proposes a control system of 'switches' that turn genes on or off – and suggests that things people experience, like nutrition and stress, can control these switches and cause heritable effects in humans.
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    since I know that darwinism is false
    you know nothing about that, cause you seem not to understand how evolution works

    I have been long fascinated with skin pigmentation. The thing is, since I know that darwinism is false, pigmentation -- along with every trait -- must somehow be acquired by offspring. I have a pretty good feeling that many new traits are formed in the egg/womb as I explained a few days ago.......it's merely development of specific traits based on internal/external environments, stimulated by hormones.)
    havent you read previus posts? we are saying that phenotype can change without the genotype changing, and the thing that traits and such you aqurie during yourlife time would come to your offspring have been disproven

    But the concept of acquired traits -- physical traits that are passed directly down from parent to child is still knawing at me. I cannot prove it yet because there are so few -- ifany -- such studies. But then again there seems to be virtually no studies done in any field of biology that would disprove Toe.
    there have been such studies, they came all to the same conclution, it isnt waht you acquire that comes to the enxt generaton. THey tried on rats, cut off the tail generation after generation yet the tail never got any shorter

    DNA reproduces itself and produces proteins; proteins do not reproduce themselves and are unable to modify the DNA that encoded them
    it isnt unable to change DNA. certain proteins can change DNA in certain ways, cut it opeen, glue it back toghater etc, but not change it like it want to

    See the reason you evolutionists don't admit that information makes a round trip within the body is because you do not want to admit that acquired characteristics can be inherited....
    we dont dont want it, its just that tests and such have shown acquired characteristics dont go to the next generation. therefor we dont use it.

    I believe this is why you have long shouted-down larmarcksim -- which basically says the mechanism of inheritance (the genes contained in our sexual cells) can be effected by the external environment
    thank you for coming with its name, was looking for it. The genes are almost perfectly copied(of course there is allways some errors but if they are to greate the featus wont even start growing) and acquired characteristics isnt passed on. But depending on the mothers condition certain genes can be activiated or deactivated in the featus and thereby generating 2 different looking individuals

    Thus, you insist that the genetic system is a one-way street. Information can go out...but it can't come back in,
    if information didnt come in how would the dna be able to activate certain genes during certain conditions?

    your idea have been falsified by science in normal experiments, wich you demand so much off. I have also shown that specieses can turn to different species with a link. Do you even bother reading others posts?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Zelos, I don't know how you have the patience to respond to this guy. Why bother when he completely ignores all replies, and just posts new garbage? He isn't interested in a discussion, he's interested in throwing a bunch of crap against the wall and hoping something sticks
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    im equally stuborn
    and also i find great enjoyment going against them
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

  97. #96  
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    Well I'm glad I've accomplished something on this board....at least I've given you guys a laugh. Maybe this will make you laugh more:
    It sure did....

    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    See, with acquired characteristics, my thought is the following: Traits such as muscle-building or any other physically acquired trait is probably not able to be acquired. However, traits that are stimulated by hormones could very possibly be acquired. This could include pigmentation, fur color, scale color, etc. And it may be even more powerful than that..........
    Okay, so what is your explanation for much LARGER characteristics: bipedalism, oposable thumbs, etc. If the information for these traits doesn't already exist in the mother, how can her hormones stimulate them to happen? In Darwinian evolution, a mistake in the reproduction of DNA strands causes a mutation (the information doesn't necesarilly have to be there).


    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    The conventional view is that DNA carries all our heritable information and that nothing an individual does in their lifetime will be biologically passed to their children.
    Well, not necessarily. If I were to spend a little time in a radiation feild, I'd probably pass some traits to my children which were direct results of standing in the radiation feild. This, however, would only happen because my sexual reproduction DNA would be altered (along with most of the DNA in my body.)

    However, tanning in the sun to change your skin colour slightly, isn't going to alter the DNA involved in sexual reproduction, and you're not going to end up with slightly darker children. Hell, if this were the case, there wouldn't be any caucasions left .


    Quote Originally Posted by lackadaisical
    Epigenetics adds a whole new layer to genes beyond the DNA. It proposes a control system of 'switches' that turn genes on or off – and suggests that things people experience, like nutrition and stress, can control these switches and cause heritable effects in humans.[/i]
    c-r-a-c-k-p-o-t... chuckle chuckle...




    J0N
    :-)
     

  98. #97  
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    He isn't interested in a discussion, he's interested in throwing a bunch of crap against the wall and hoping something sticks
    Right on... he's more closely related to monkies than he thinks :wink:
    :-)
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    since I know that darwinism is false
    you know nothing about that, cause you seem not to understand how evolution works?
    I know exactly how it works...all I'm saying is it's a fairytale because not only is there no gradualism shown in the fossil record, but your mechanism of random mutation is a joke -- and even the evodevo guys are trying to save you from such utter nonsense. The fact is animals change QUICKLY as a result of an environmental change. Such tests are completely avoided by science becaus they would disprove TOE. That's a FACT.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    [havent you read previus posts? we are saying that phenotype can change without the genotype changing, and the thing that traits and such you aqurie during yourlife time would come to your offspring have been disproven?
    Where??? I want a link to these controlled tests. And heres the type of test I want to see.......I want to see where they take dogs (of the same type) to different locations in the world.....one to the arctic circle, one to the Outback....then I want to see those dogs live there for a few years and produce offspring. Then I want to see what happens to the offspring. Do they emerge with different colors? Do they grow/lose hair? Are their bodies' different? Have they grown longer limbs? Have they put on mass? Have they grown thicker skin? What happens???? where are all these silly tests? Are scientists afraid??? Please point me to a link! I submit they don't exist because evolutionists are chicken of real science and of how nature really works.



    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    [there have been such studies, they came all to the same conclution, it isnt waht you acquire that comes to the enxt generaton. THey tried on rats, cut off the tail generation after generation yet the tail never got any shorter?
    strawman......I suggest heritable traits are generated by hormones.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    [it isnt unable to change DNA. certain proteins can change DNA in certain ways, cut it opeen, glue it back toghater etc, but not change it like it want to?
    All I'm suggesting is that information goes in a circle...and DNA is not the controller...rather it's being conrolled.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    [we dont dont want it, its just that tests and such have shown acquired characteristics dont go to the next generation. therefor we dont use it.?
    show me the types of tests I've presented. This is a direct challenge.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    your idea have been falsified by science in normal experiments, wich you demand so much off. I have also shown that specieses can turn to different species with a link. Do you even bother reading others posts?
    Strawman. I don't care if you can prove an animal turns into the Creature from the Black Lagoon. That's not the point. My point is your mechansim for change is a joke. Random mutations are joke. Natural selection is joke. Niether one of them have an ounce of I.Q....thus they could never contruct anything from scratch. You need a new theory desperately. The one you're clinging to now is pathetic. It's like a sick animal...it needs to be put out of its misery with quick bullet to the head.
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    He isn't interested in a discussion, he's interested in throwing a bunch of crap against the wall and hoping something sticks
    Right on... he's more closely related to monkies than he thinks :wink:
    lol, that was a good one
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    no gradualism shown in the fossil record
    i wonder what fossiles you have seen, i have seen fossile series where you can see the change.

    The fact is animals change QUICKLY as a result of an environmental change
    called once again adepting, its a need that they ahve to have to survive. this doesnt falsify genetics or darwinism, rather say its right

    Where??? I want a link to these controlled tests. And heres the type of test I want to see.......I want to see where they take dogs (of the same type) to different locations in the world.....one to the arctic circle, one to the Outback....then I want to see those dogs live there for a few years and produce offspring. Then I want to see what happens to the offspring. Do they emerge with different colors? Do they grow/lose hair? Are their bodies' different? Have they grown longer limbs? Have they put on mass? Have they grown thicker skin? What happens???? where are all these silly tests? Are scientists afraid??? Please point me to a link! I submit they don't exist because evolutionists are chicken of real science and of how nature really works.
    you havent read aperently, science build on 2 things, observations, you are forgetting this one, and experiments.
    i dont know any link, maybe someone can look it up, but the test of aquired characteristics bieng passed on have been done thuo. they have been shown to be false. Shouldnt rat whos tail is cut off give birth to rat babies with shorter tails if lamarck were right? and you? yet the tail remained the same.

    strawman......I suggest heritable traits are generated by hormones.
    for a thrait to be active you need first proteins that react to this ´hormone, then you proteins able to react with those protein, and this genes in turn need to remove proteins that is locking those genes, or prevent those proteins from ever getting locked there. If this genes for this proteins isnt already present, the hormone dont do a shit. take squid hormes put it in your body, i ensure you, you wont turn to a squid.

    All I'm suggesting is that information goes in a circle...and DNA is not the controller...rather it's being conrolled.
    DNA -> RNA -> Protein
    looks like a one way trip, when you dont know that proteins effect what genes are active at what time. the proteins do a tremendous job, fix genes, cointroll them, keep them inactive, keep them active, make things happen. they do alot of things, even "communicate" with dna and "tells" it what proteins to produce.

    show me the types of tests I've presented. This is a direct challenge.
    In 1889, German biologist August Weismann showed that Lamarck's [explanation of evolution] was incorrect. Weismann cut off the tails of hundreds of mice for 22 generations. Lamarck's hypothesis [sic] would predict that eventually mice would be born with shorter tails or no tails at all. However, Weismann's mice continued to produce baby mice with normal tails. Weismann concluded that changes in the body during an individual's lifetime do not affect the reproductive cells or the offspring
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Weismann
    By cutting the tails off mice for twenty-one generations and seeing that the twenty-second generation still had tails, Weismann demonstrated that the injury was not passed on to the offspring and thus that acquired characteristics are not heritable.
    hope thats enough, 22 generations should atleast give a shorter tail that is measruble

    My point is your mechansim for change is a joke. Random mutations are joke. Natural selection is joke.
    the joke here is you

    Niether one of them have an ounce of I.Q
    of course not, IQ is a human characteristic, objects/ideas cant have IQ

    You need a new theory desperately. The one you're clinging to now is pathetic. It's like a sick animal...it needs to be put out of its misery with quick bullet to the head.
    nope, the one we have yet is suffient and is yet working with all current evidence, come with one that worx with them and tells soemthing else that evolution cant, wich what i know it can explain everything related to it, and you got a hit. lamarck is dead, so is his idea. THe only place his things applies is when the species already have the genes and passes on some hormones onto that child to make it ready for a different world, a mouse species is capable to either be yellow and fat, or grey and brown, mother eats much, it becomes more grey, she eat less, it becomes fat (becuase it has genes telling it to create alot of fat) this is due thou normal evoulution and its required, gives 2 options depended on the eniorment tehrefor increase its survival. But if the genes dont tell it, it cant do that stuff. and proteins cant create intelligent changes in DNA.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •