First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Discussion of theories on Evolution
Posted 3/13/09
Instead of evolution, I'm more interested about the abnormal cells that turn to cancer cells and mutations of HIVs.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 3/13/09

Allhailodin wrote:
Nah, about your soul/evolution explanation, I'd like to hear that, I'm curious about how your going to explain it.


I don't feel safe telling you, you're probably going to subconsiously think it's what most young (13-30) christians think. Plus do you really care and are you actually interested in believe that souls exist? My explaination is kind of crude anyways and I'm just hoping the Vatican will come up with something.


Things that make me feel guilty eh, not many things make that happen, and even if i feel guilty it's not going to stop me from doing it again, and eventually it no longer makes me feel guilty. That's how you solve that problem. Just keep doing it till you don't feel guilty about it anymore.


If you think guilt is something to get past then why do you think humans have it. Many mammals, like dogs and cats, have complex feeling just like us. Why do you think feelings, like guilt, were developed?
And if you don't care about morals but has a body that doesn't do things that are morally wrong then how can you say you don't believe in anything?


Well the only thing that would stop me from raping the girl or boy I like is my utter lack of interest in sex and the law, I have absolutely no desire to have sex and even less desire to go to jail. But i'm also not a social person, and i rarely interact with people, execpt online, so i don't have a girl or boy I like, thus I also don't have anyone i truly "hate" there are people i don't like because their annoying, but that's not worthy of killing them.


Blue: That explains a lot about your moral apathy. You have one life, make use of it. Go live life to figure out why people have morals and beliefs. Actually try to be socially active, it stimulates the brain. I've tried it and it works. Do it often, several times a day with a person face to face. Make a friend and hang out with him or her often if you don't like big group circles like me.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 3/29/09
'get a good idea of where we come from one should look up the tv series Walking with Beasts - Next of Kin -'

1778 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 4/20/09
we can't find the true meaning of evolution until we find the 'missing link'...which is literary completely buried at the bottom of the earth


but biologically speaking evolution has something to do with the genes
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/21/09 , edited 4/21/09

jamfoxs wrote:

we can't find the true meaning of evolution until we find the 'missing link'...which is literary completely buried at the bottom of the earth


but biologically speaking evolution has something to do with the genes

MIssing Link? I think I already pointed out that there is no missing link. Thats just a over used false remark ID Nuts like to use.

Look it up.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFoJALJjUV4
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 4/21/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


jamfoxs wrote:

we can't find the true meaning of evolution until we find the 'missing link'...which is literary completely buried at the bottom of the earth


but biologically speaking evolution has something to do with the genes

MIssing Link? I think I already pointed out that there is no missing link. Thats just a over used false remark ID Nuts like to use.

Look it up.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFoJALJjUV4


Too boring to watch, but did it say anything about fossil evidence of the common ancestor between humans and chimps? I'm pretty sure that that's what the "missing link" is supposed to be, and that's what hasn't been found as far as I know.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Online
Posted 5/2/09 , edited 5/2/09
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

I believe that evolution is not fact and is fundamentally flawed...
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/2/09

digs wrote:

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

I believe that evolution is not fact and is fundamentally flawed...


Oh ? Evolution exists, we've seen it in other animals besides humans, and found evidence of it in humans, so if a cell is capable of evolution, so are multicellular beings, like animals(including humans) evolution makes far more sense then we were put here by some higher power 2000 years ago, plus that's impossible because we know humans have been around for more then 2000 years, homo sapien has been around for 250,000 years, and we have both bones and stone tools to prove it, we have basic stone tools from humans before homo sapien and more complex tools (which shows a higher problem solving ability, which is when modern humans evolved) to prove humans have been around for more then 2000 years, more then 250,000 years, humans have been around for 2.2 million years. Far longer then your 2000.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/2/09 , edited 5/2/09

digs wrote:

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

I believe that evolution is not fact and is fundamentally flawed...


So what do you call it when a bacteria cell absorbs genetic material and changes it's phenotype (gene expression) to match the newly acquired genes? Even the article you posted agrees that microevolution is true, which is what I just described. Microevolution is evolution, so according to what I assume to be an expert on creationism, evolution is fact in some instances.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Online
Posted 5/2/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


digs wrote:

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

I believe that evolution is not fact and is fundamentally flawed...


So what do you call it when a bacteria cell absorbs genetic material and changes it's phenotype (gene expression) to match the newly acquired genes?


Microevolution, which is the evolution of single celled organism. They also typically don't mutate genetically and become better, they find new genetic material that they add to themselves. Microevolution is generally accepted, but Macroevolution (what is commonly just called evolution) has holes and unanswered questions.

5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/2/09 , edited 5/2/09

digs wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:


digs wrote:

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

I believe that evolution is not fact and is fundamentally flawed...


So what do you call it when a bacteria cell absorbs genetic material and changes it's phenotype (gene expression) to match the newly acquired genes?


Microevolution, which is the evolution of single celled organism. They also typically don't mutate genetically and become better, they find new genetic material that they add to themselves. Microevolution is generally accepted, but Macroevolution (what is commonly just called evolution) has holes and unanswered questions.



Still reading through the article, but even early on I can see a few incorrect assumptions about what evolution is. The article even states that creationists agree with natural selection, which is one of the main phenomena that drives evolution. They make the incorrect assumption that random mutations are one of the main causes of evolution, which is untrue of large multicellular organisms. Mutations really only affect simple single-celled organisms (prokaryotes). Random mutations in larger organisms kill them more often than benefit them, so random mutation is not a driving force of evolution for them.

Another false assumtion that they make is that genomes can only be changed by adding or removing nucleotide sequences, and that most forms of mutation only change and rearrange the sequences that are already there. But even anyone with a basic understanding of genetics (me) knows that changing and rearrangining nucleotide sequences can create entirely new peptides (which is what nucleotides code for) that can drastically change the phenotype of an organism.

These simple misconceptions make me not want to read the rest, but I'll press on.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Online
Posted 5/2/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


digs wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:


digs wrote:

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

I believe that evolution is not fact and is fundamentally flawed...


So what do you call it when a bacteria cell absorbs genetic material and changes it's phenotype (gene expression) to match the newly acquired genes?


Microevolution, which is the evolution of single celled organism. They also typically don't mutate genetically and become better, they find new genetic material that they add to themselves. Microevolution is generally accepted, but Macroevolution (what is commonly just called evolution) has holes and unanswered questions.



Still reading through the article, but even early on I can see a few assumptions about what evolution is. The article even states that creationists agree with natural selection, which is one of the main phenomena that drives evolution. They make the incorrect assumption that random mutations are one of the main causes of evolution, which is untrue of large multicellular organisms. Mutations really only affect simple single-celled organisms (prokaryotes). Random mutations in larger organisms kill them more often than benefit them, so random mutation is not a driving force of evolution for them.

Another false assumtion that they make is that genomes can only be changed by adding or removing nucleotide sequences, and that most forms of mutation only change and rearrange the sequences that are already there. But even anyone with a basic understanding of genetics (me) knows that changing and rearrangining nucleotide sequences can create entirely new peptides (which is what nucleotides code for) that can drastically change the phenotype of an organism.

These simple misconceptions make me not want to read the rest, but I'll press on.


I do agree with you that some of the arguments in the article are not as good as they could be regarding evolution. And I kinda didn't like how he discussed astronomy and the big bang. I think his agenda was to disprove materialism. But regardless it did have some strong content in there, I just wish he was consistent and used a wider range of arguments.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/2/09

digs wrote:

I do agree with you that some of the arguments in the article are not as good as they could be regarding evolution. And I kinda didn't like how he discussed astronomy and the big bang. I think his agenda was to disprove materialism. But regardless it did have some strong content in there, I just wish he was consistent and used a wider range of arguments.


I didn't read all of it, but I can safely say that the author's understanding of evolution's role in biology is really distorted. Since this thread is about evolution in biological terms then that's what I focused on, and that article doesn't disprove any of the conceptual pieces of the theory of evolution. I didn't read about it's critique of the fossil record either, mainly because biologists openly admit that there are many holes in the fossil record, and that it is not a reliable source of evidence for the phylogeny of all organisms.

The part about evolution being used as a philosophy also made some incorrect assumtions. It basically states that "a lot of atheists are evolutionists, so evolution promotes atheism." That's no different than me saying "a lot of idiots are religious, so religion promotes stupidity," which is obviously not true. In biology at least, nothing about evolution implies that a higher power could not have created evolution, and nothing about evolution disproves or even attempts to explain anything about ethics, an afterlife, or the meaning of life.

I think this particular article actually hurt your stance more than it helped. It's just another example of someone trying to disprove something based on their misconceptions about it.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Online
Posted 5/2/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


digs wrote:

I do agree with you that some of the arguments in the article are not as good as they could be regarding evolution. And I kinda didn't like how he discussed astronomy and the big bang. I think his agenda was to disprove materialism. But regardless it did have some strong content in there, I just wish he was consistent and used a wider range of arguments.


I didn't read all of it, but I can safely say that the author's understanding of evolution's role in biology is really distorted. Since this thread is about evolution in biological terms then that's what I focused on, and that article doesn't disprove any of the conceptual pieces of the theory of evolution. I didn't read about it's critique of the fossil record either, mainly because biologists openly admit that there are many holes in the fossil record, and that it is not a reliable source of evidence for the phylogeny of all organisms.

The part about evolution being used as a philosophy also made some incorrect assumtions. It basically states that "a lot of atheists are evolutionists, so evolution promotes atheism." That's no different than me saying "a lot of idiots are religious, so religion promotes stupidity," which is obviously not true. In biology at least, nothing about evolution implies that a higher power could not have created evolution, and nothing about evolution disproves or even attempts to explain anything about ethics, an afterlife, or the meaning of life.

I think this particular article actually hurt your stance more than it helped. It's just another example of someone trying to disprove something based on their misconceptions about it.


You may be right, I should have used a better article, and I'm sorry for the assumptions he made, they don't reflect my views at all. I do know this website does have much information in Intelligent design and discusses evolutionary problems. http://creation.com/ http://www.icr.org/. They are both scientific institutions.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/2/09

digs wrote:

You may be right, I should have used a better article, and I'm sorry for the assumptions he made, they don't reflect my views at all. I do know this website does have much information in Intelligent design and discusses evolutionary problems. http://creation.com/ http://www.icr.org/. They are both scientific institutions.


But was the author correct when he said that Creationists believe that natural selection occurs? If so then that means Creationists acknowledge that macroevolution does occur in nature, since natural selection can cause speciation over long periods of time.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.