65
   

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Sep, 2017 08:41 pm
https://s3.amazonaws.com/EarthwatchMedia/GalleryImages/loons-of-the-canadian-prairie-c-dr-james-paruk-h10_5654.jpg
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Sep, 2017 09:18 pm
@Setanta,
Worth a 1000 words. Wink
Some things you always wanted to know about ducks.
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/22/ballistic-penises-and-corkscrew-vaginas-the-sexual-battles/
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  2  
Reply Fri 22 Sep, 2017 09:59 pm
@Christian0912,
Christian0912 wrote:

Here we go...
Mutation-Yes.
Reproduction-Yes.
Genes-Yes
Natural Selection-Yes

I believe that all of the above is real, but can ANYONE tell me how using only the above processes, you can create an ENTIRE human body. If you can, then you're smarter than I.

A male sticks his penis in a woman's vagina and transfers sperm containing his DNA. If it is the right time of the month and the woman is fertile, a sperm will fertilize her egg that contains her DNA. If all goes well, in approximately 9 months, an ENTIRE human body will be born containing their combined DNA and any genetic mutations that have occurred in their lifetimes to date. This process will pass on the Natural Selection evolution inherent from the parents to the child.
Christian0912
 
  0  
Reply Fri 22 Sep, 2017 10:22 pm
@BillW,
But where did that male and female come from? Previous men and women? Where did they come from?
BillW
 
  2  
Reply Fri 22 Sep, 2017 10:50 pm
@Christian0912,
A stomolite
Christian0912
 
  0  
Reply Fri 22 Sep, 2017 10:55 pm
@BillW,
Nice try haha
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Sep, 2017 11:11 pm
@BillW,
BillW wrote:

A stomolite


Make that stromatolite.
BillW
 
  2  
Reply Fri 22 Sep, 2017 11:23 pm
@Christian0912,
Christian0912 wrote:

Nice try haha

....and, I bet your " try" is a myth told around campfires for thousands of years (can't be over 5,000) with little bits of extra extravaganza added on to the tale from time to time to add a little bit of added zing, right?
Christian0912
 
  0  
Reply Fri 22 Sep, 2017 11:43 pm
@BillW,
No, not quite. My 'try' is that there is a God, whose ways and thoughts are higher than yours and mine, created the world. I understand it can be far-fetched but it's a lot more reasonable than evolution. Have a look at this; https://everestalexander.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/atheismisstupid.png?w=627

You better take notes...
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Sep, 2017 12:44 am
@Christian0912,
Who ever "Everest John Alexander"" is, he flunked Science 101: An Introduction to Science for Jocks. None of those alleged facts are what science actually says, or what the research is pointing to, particularly number 2. And number 3 is a total non sequitur. Fail,.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Sep, 2017 03:01 am
@brianjakub,
brianjakub wrote:

Quote:
interestingly, they would result overwhelmingly from Male neander X female sapiens, rather than vice versa.
. That is a very interesting observation but how in the heck do we know who was bedding who?that is assuming of course they were civilized enough to do it in a bed :-)

We know something about interspecies sexual reproduction through the study of our genes, and increasingly the study of fossil DNA. It would seem that:

1. Sapiens populations from Eurasia would have typically 3-4% of their nucleus DNA that comes from a Neanderthal origin. Not always on the same genes though, so the total percentage of Neanderthal genome preserved across many different current Sapiens is larger, maybe 20 percent? of the old cousin's genome was preserved among us, dispersed across all of us, with each of us having only a fraction of that Neandetthal DNA.
2. No present Sapiens studied so far had any mitochondrial DNA of Neanderthal origin in him/her.
3. No DNA of Neanderthal origin has been found so far on a Sapiens Y chromosome.
4. Some studied Neanderthal fossils had both mitochondrial DNA of Sapiens origin as well as regular nucleus DNA from Sapiens.

These facts are still tentative. Much could still change as more DNA gets analysed in both the living and dead. But assuming they hold true, they tell us the following:

1. tells us that there was some significant interbreeding that, as explained upthread, came about around 60,000 yr ago, prior to the colonisation of Europe by Sapiens.

2. and 3. implies that fact 1. resulted from the survival and succesful reproduction, within early Sapiens societies in contact with Neanderthal, of female offsprings (daughters) of female Sapiens and male Neanderthal.

The male offsprings resulting from such unions may have had some fertility problem. Or maybe they had monstruous cocks or somethin'...

4. implies that some female Sapiens once reproduced successfully in Neanderthal societies. They had fertile offsprings who further mingled with other Neanderthal. So the gene flux went both ways.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Sep, 2017 03:57 am
@Christian0912,
Here's another quote from your self publicist preacher Everest John Alexander ('gospel rapper' from Trinidad).

Quote:
It was through a series of really bizarre encounters with serious demonic forces that I came to know Jesus Christ as my personal Lord, Savior and Deliverer


Shocked wooooooooo !
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Sep, 2017 05:02 am
@fresco,
Quote:
Here's another quote from your self publicist preacher Everest John Alexander ('gospel rapper' from Trinidad).

Quote:
It was through a series of really bizarre encounters with serious demonic forces that I came to know Jesus Christ as my personal Lord, Savior and Deliverer


Shocked wooooooooo

You are a philosopher, how was his unrelated past experience relevant to the discussion? (except to be an attempt by you to set up a false bias in like minded readers as they view Alexander's statements) It is a fact that complex code like that found in DNA, has either been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be produced by human intelligence. We have no evidence supporting random processes have ever produced complex code. So far the only evidence we have acquired from DNA, is it is very complex, it evolved and we cannot figure out how random mutations could have produced the new information in such a way that it would evolve to a vastly more complex organism, as Nei has pointed out in his many books and articles.

Home»March»Mutation, Not Natural Selection, Drives Evolution
FROM THE MARCH 2014 ISSUE
Mutation, Not Natural Selection, Drives Evolution
Molecular evolutionary biologist Masatoshi Nei says Darwin never proved natural selection is the driving force of evolution — because it isn't.

http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/12-mutation-not-natural-selection-drives-evolution

In the end quit talking about the messengers, and focus on the message. Who delivered the message is irrelevant to the validity of the message if it has supporting data, and clearly this one does have a lot of supporting data. (what's next? are you going to point out people's political views, or sexual preferences and provide them as evidence to support your argument?)
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Sep, 2017 05:10 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
We know something about interspecies sexual reproduction through the study of our genes, and increasingly the study of fossil DNA. It would seem that:
So, how is this information (which seems to suggest Neanderthal men were taking Homosapien women), going to contribute to the topic we were discussing, "is there enough evidence to provide some "proof" random mutations can provide the new complex information necessary for macroevolution through natural selection?

Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Sep, 2017 05:29 am
@brianjakub,
It shows that mutations are not the only source of new genetic information in a given species. There is also the possibility of admixture of genetic material from other species (or from a very different subspecies) through sex. Sexual reproduction is geared to accelerate evolution by constantly remixing the gene pool. Mestizos are us.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Sep, 2017 06:37 am
@Olivier5,
Different species can't interbreed can they?
Quote:
Sexual reproduction is geared to accelerate evolution by constantly remixing the gene pool. Mestizos are us.
Sexual reproduction is combining very similar DNA codes otherwise they couldn't mate sexually. Yes, that can introduce more random mutations by doubling the amount of DNA that can be mutating. But random is still the driver for the new information being provided. This could speed up the process but, it does not explain how by just adding more random processes, they provided the new information correctly to cause macroevolution through natural selection of complex information.

But the neanderthal, homosapien rape scenario you pointed out earlier, is portrayed quite clearly in the Bible (by my interpretation).

I am a pure bred Bohemian, which makes me better. Cool Or does it make me a Bohunk.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Sep, 2017 06:49 am
@brianjakub,
brianjakub wrote:

Different species can't interbreed can they?


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Juancito.jpg/1200px-Juancito.jpg

A mule, offspring of a donkey and horse.

http://www.ligerworld.com/images/liger-population-worldwide.jpg

A liger, offspring of a lion and tiger.

https://www.middaydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Grizzly-Polar-Bear-Increase-1024x846.jpg

And this is a grizzly/polar bear hybrid.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Sep, 2017 06:57 am
@brianjakub,
That reply was indeed nothing to do with evolution as it was directed at Christian's rejection of atheism.
But since you are on about 'genetic codes', you might read Pross's book on 'What is Life' in which genetics is explained in terms of systems chemistry and the principle of Dynamic Kinetic Stability' for a reductionist answer which makes ID look pretty simplistic.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Sep, 2017 07:12 am
@brianjakub,
The point is that a recombination of two different genomes leads to new text. Imagine that an editor mixes by mistake two tragedies from Shakespeare: one verse from Macbeth, one verse from the Midsummer Night Dream, etc. Among much bizarre jibberish, one could perhaps find an interesting quatrain or two. Similarly, sometimes sexual reproduction puts in contact two mutations which so far were neutral or not terribly useful, but together they make a big difference.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Sep, 2017 07:36 am
@fresco,

Re: Pross' DKS
Quote:

Pross succinctly states the problem facing theories of the origin of life early in the book. “It is not just common sense that tells us that highly organized entities don’t just spontaneously come about,” he writes. “Certain basic laws of physics preach the same sermon—systems tend toward chaos and disorder, not toward order and function. No wonder several of the great physicists of the twentieth century, among them Eugene Wigner, Niels Bohr, and Erwin Schrödinger, found the issue highly troublesome. Biology and physics seem contradictory, quite incompatible.”

His solution of DKS is interesting, but for reasons he would probably not agree with. I'm not convinced of his solution but for a moment let's say it is a fact.

If the very diverse fields of chemistry/physics and biology do in fact have some kind of 'cosmic interrelationship' wherein this emergence of life as we see it is predestined to result, then I would be even more convinced that an intelligence was involved from the beginning. It's a pool shot that was so precise that again, random chance is not a plausible answer. From that perspective, DKS could be taken as proof of ID.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/23/2024 at 03:49:49