by zagor 142 Replies latest jw friends
I think that people who declare that they do not "believe" in evolution should be
taken seriously. When they show up at the doctor to get their flu vaccine,
the doctor could give them a 10 year old one. Because according to them
viruses do not evolve at all so the flu viruses must then be exactly the same
every year, right?
Norm
If we were talking about building bridges intead of evolution, I think we would see one side of the debate ignorant of the definitions of, or coining new definitons for terms like stress and strain. They would also refuse to believe that the theory and practice of building bridges has slowly changed due to the scarsity of transtional forms, but would insist that each type of bridge was a seperate unique water-crossing concept uniquely created.
It ALWAYS happens like this; one side either through what they say and how they say it, or through admission of the fact, display they typically have not really studied evolution and do not have a scientific background or an adequate comprehension of the subject.
These same people still think that 'cause THEY don't understand it, it can't be true. They naturally gravitate towards people who make them feel that their (uninformed) opinion is a viable one... and these people they use to support their arguement will typically have the same issues with comprehension of the subject as them, either having predetermined the answer illogically (so logical will not change their opinion) or having no real specialisation in the subject.
Despite their willingness to use amateurs, minority opinions, and people operating outside of their scientific specialism to support their disbelief in evolution such people show no confidence in the services of similarly unqualified doctors, dentists, or even plumbers...
... I've always found that funny... they go to experts for their health but seek opinionated iconoclasts for the bits of science they don't get/like.
Frank
You seem to ignore or not to understand the two cases;
1/ Where milk from dometicated animals is used.
2/ Where it is not used.
In case 2/ nothing changes. there is no positive or negative selection of any genetic variation that occirs that allows lactase to be produced in adulthood. Any such variation is removed in time.
In case 1/ those with the variation would carry on using milk in adulthood; they would not start feeling ill when they drank milk so would have no reason to stop using it. Those without the variation would stop drinking milk when lactase prodution fell to the point where dairy consumption made them ill. Those with the variation would have a useful additonal source of sustenance; if they had more children than those without the variation, in time the extra children (most of whom would have the variation) would spread through the population simply by those with it outbreeding those without.
Imagine instead of lactose tolerance people without green eyes could only have half the children of those with green eyes; green eyes would spread through the population very quickly.
To use a false example like poisonous mushrooms gets your point nowhere. Milk is never poisonous; it can and is consumed by (ignoring dairy allergy which is a different thing all together) humans at first with no ill effect.
This changes in those without lactose tolerance.
Poisonous mushrooms on the other hand are NEVER a part of a human's diet as they are..., POISONOUS!!!
Likewise better nutrition leading to larger people has nothing to do with genetic change.
Apostate Kate
If you saw someone who didn't know much about Leonardo Da Vinchi declaring 99% of experts wrong, and saw that they didn't even properly understand the terms used in the discussion, you'd think they were hasty or arrogant in reaching their conculsion unless they could show definatively the 1% are right. Especially as it became apparent they hadn't studied the subject to any depth.
Please bear in mind that the FACT (which you admit) you do not know much about evolution is leading you into a situation where with incomplete knowledge you declare 99% of experts are wrong, and you have done nothing to make someone who knows about evolution think that the 1% are right. If this means you get treated a little incredulously, it's your own doing, don't make other people responsible for the recepetion your attitude generates.
Every species has DNA code that is as if written in stone.
FALSE. Please, read up on the subject.
Adaptations can take place but there is not nor ever has been any evidence that my chihuahua could ever adapt into an entire other species.
It already has. If humans disappeared tomorrow and there were environments where chihuahuas could survive in the wild, they would (in company with other toy breeds in the area) create a different gene pool to 'proper' size dogs. There would be no interbreeding with larger dogs due to mechanical issues based on the impossbility of fertilisation. 1,000 years later genetic drift of the two canine gene pools, the chihuapoodyorkies and the general mutts, would probable be so large interbreeding would be difficult even using mechanical intervention.
Mutations show no gain in genetic information. Genetic information can be "activated" for this lactose intolerance, but again, no new genetic material was found.
Look, if you have a gene sequence
GTCGTAAC
And in time it becomes
AAAGTAAC
... you have NEW genetic material, BY DEFINITON, just as if you at one point have the number 1234567 and later have the number 8884567 you have a NEW number.
I'm not a higly intelligent person but I stand behind the Second Law of Thermodyanics and Entropy.
No, you choose to accept the assurances of a minority who insist that this law precludes evolution because that is the opinion you want backed up. You ignore any decent physics student could show you the application of the 2nd law to evolution by cynics is a false one
From what I've read the fossel record shows periods of teeming life with complete die-offs and then teeming life again. That also discounts a slow billions year evolution.
Why say 'from what I've read', when it's obvious that this is at the least not enough? Do you know how rare a process fossilisation is? In additon to the above being regurgitated pap from some website or book that supports your opinion (we can see how you favour this over information that is commonly accepted by experts as reliable), you seem to have a charming misconception over what evidence there SHOULD be.
Show me proof where DNA code received additional information out of nowhere.
It doesn't get it from nowhere. This statement alone (akin to someone saying Leonardo Da Vinchi invented the colour green) marks your cards as opinionated but uninformed.
Where is the proof that ANY life form is evolving into a more complex life form.
In the fossil record; this is a massive bank of evidence of life forms evolving from one form into more complex ones. You do not seem aware that evolution is;
1/ The word used to describe the development of organsims as preserved in the fossil recod.
2/ The theory of how this change takes place.
By saying 1/ does not exist you risk placing yourself out there amongst the people who say the Earth is 10,000 years old...
Well it should be doncha think! If evolution has so much evidence that it is a fact, then we should SEE the mechanics of it in everyday life wouldn't we?
We do. Lactose tolerance and sickle cell anemia are two such examples. Of course, you are swallowing, hook line and sinker the false argument put forward by cynics. They make it sound like the failure of new forms of life to pop up every minute indicates evolution is false, when no one says new forms of life pop up every minute; the time scale is far far larger... of course, this ignores bacteria, which evolve like crazy and acquire new (for them) gemetic information all the time. But it does happen; a new species of plant (arrisng from a non-backbreeding self-fertile hyprid) was ntoiced in a train station car park, for example.
Do some research on ring species to try and understand why transitions are normally so hard to 'see'. The Lesser black-backed gull and the Herring gull are one such example... an ancestor species spread one way round the world... by the time it arrived from the West at the point the ancestor species had moved Eastward, the Western members of the species no longer bred with those in the original locale... yet at any point in its range you can take gulls from comparatively close breeding zones and they will interbreed. Two species with no visable transition.
Until there is scientific proof that a single celled organism can evolve into a more complex organism I will remain an unbeliever in evolution. If this is the means that all life came from, there must be evidence. There have been so many errors in scientific theory's in the history of science that it is ignorant to me to accept as fact an unproven theory.
The biggest thing you ignore is that evolution cynics do not change their opinion of origins as new evidence arrises; they are stuck in a time wharp where their hypothesis is exactly the same as it was, with no new evidence for it, as it was 10,000 years ago.
If REAL evidence was found tomorrow that disproved evolution it would be discarded as a theory by any reputable scientist.
Apostate kate
Do you believe in god? Do you demand the same evidence of him as you do evolution?
S
Apostate kate
Do you believe in god? Do you demand the same evidence of him as you do evolution?
S
Yes I do. I did not demand evidence but He gave it anyway. This has been fun but I am done here. I find it interesting that I have been called names, told I was ignorant and all from people who I doubt have put much more research into their beliefs that I have except save maybe Leolai. All I said is I don't accept this theory as proof of the evolution of any organism into a higher more complex life form because I have never seen proof of this. The fact remains that with all this supposed evidence, it is not enough to name it the "Law" of evolution. A bacteruim can be effected by the environment to survive, all life wants to survive, but it will never grow a central nervous system. It will adapt to its surroundings, not grow a brain, it is bacteria and has been bacteria since God created it. Missing links are still missing. Leoliai-I know there are some benifits to genetics, all I have said is there is no evidence that these changes have ever lead to new more complex life form. If a percentage study was done we may find there are more detrimental effects of mutating genetic material than good. That is just common sense here. Take a walk through your local convalescent hospital and take a good look. If adaptation and natural selection were adding quality genetic material to the human genome greater than mutations were corrupting, why are we so screwed up? Why are we riddled with diseases? Abadon if you have a new gene sequence doesn't that mean you also have an old gene sequence? And since it is adaptation dependant on environmental input isn't fluctuationg information? In mapping the two genetic diseases in my ancestors, there is no evidence that we developed new information that caused us to be more highly evolved and disease resistant. The mutation happened and has been passed along since before the Vikings were raping and pilaging. Adam and Eve (scientists named) have been mapped all the way back to Africa. Again, show me any scientific evidence that shows a living human can pop up out of no where. I understand the theory completly, and it makes no sense to me. So Eve popped up, a gigantic mutation from an ape and Adam did at the same time, just popped up and the human race was here. If this works for you fine! It doesn't for me. I have no desire to defend my position on this, nor am I asking anybody here to defend theirs. ::gone and not looking at this thread again::
Apostate Kate:
Your posts have now gone well beyond the boundaries of excusable ignorance. Your comments to me were rude, childish and stupid. Your knowledge of evolution is still almost completely non-existent. What you do "know" seems to consist entirely of the sort of tedious nonsense that has been soundly debunked years ago. Every challenge you posed was answered. People who know a lot more about this subject than you provided evidence you claimed didn't exist, or showed you why we would not expect to see what you believe evolution predicts. Despite this, you continue to dismiss the information you don't like and insist that you have done research and that there is no evidence for evolution. You are clearly wrong on both points.
You may not accept it, you may continue to babble about this subject as if you understand it and quote people you imagine to be authorities on the subject (people who believe the entire universe was created after the domestication of the dog!), but you are as wrong as if you claimed the earth was flat, and with little more excuse.
I see no further point in debating you unless you are actually willing to learn about the subject, and as yet, you seem unwilling or unable to do so.
Apostate kate
Your style is more rant than arguement.
S
I began my last post before Apostate Kate made hers (it didn't take that long to write, I was interrupted) and as she won't be back, this is not addressed to her. But I couldn't resist highlighting something from her last post, a perfect little nugget of embarrassing ignorance:
I understand the theory completly, and it makes no sense to me. So Eve popped up, a gigantic mutation from an ape and Adam did at the same time, just popped up and the human race was here.
This is what I object to, not that we disagree in our conclusions, but that once again, Apostate Kate claims to understand something, and then immediately demonstrates that she doesn't. It's insulting to those who do understand these things and have taken the time to explain them to her.
Kudos to you, Derek. You rebutted a number of arguments, while having your intelligence insulted, and maintained your composure without resort to ad hominem. I'm sure you know I mean that genuinely, rather than in condescension
Kate:
Being told you are ignorant of something isn't the same as being told you're an idiot. Ignorance just means you have more to learn, as we all do. It also implies that the one being addressed has the capacity to learn that which they currently don't know. In other words it isn't meant as an insult.
"Common sense" does not prevail in the world at large, hence the statement "truth is stranger than fiction" as clearly evidenced with the Duck-Billed Platypus and Jack Nicolson...
Apostate kate said
The fact remains that with all this supposed evidence, it is not enough to name it the "Law" of evolution.
In my limited study of the evolution subject, i have never seen it called a law by scientists. Kate suggesting that it has is another strawman arguement. In fact, the theory of evolution has been in flux since darwin started it.
S
LT: Duck-Billed Platypus and Jack Nicolson
What !!! They're a couple now?
steve
