I agree with you One hundred percent you can't get something from nothing, This is something I strugled with growing up in a cristian home however I can give you two examples one from each side.

First off the non believers you can't get something from nothing that is correct based off
Everything we know and what our experience teaches us growing up, For example you put a fire craker inside a glass cube and sispend that from a scale giving you a weight now regardless of what it wheighs if you set it off will the box wheigh the same? Most people would assume no because there is no fire cracker left however the box will wieght the same every time, Why? Because the powder and everything that made up the firework has now been turned to gas or smoke however the weight still remains the same!

Now if your able to think outside the box for just one moment and consider the possability that the universe and I don't me god! Has its own set of rules not like what we all believe
Is it possible that what most of us believe is parcialy a buyproduct of what our parents have engrained into us? Perhaps society? Or is it simply because we can't wrap our minds of which we only us ten percent of around the possability that a human's perseption of thing works much like every other species. Take a great white shark for instance usually when a shark approches a object of which it cannot understand it becomes cureus and will test the object by rubbing up against it and biting it. Is this much different than a child learning and testing new things? Instanly learning the first time it cry's out in hunger pains and gets a bottle, or cry's and gets picked up, These thing's become programed into our minds as fact and reality!

The point Im trying to make here is that is it mabe possible that the reason we believe we can't get something from nothing is because that's what we live what we see?
We cannot understand it because everything on our planet lives and die's, Its bourne and then expires, Our brains simply cannot comprehend always has been because we and everything around us are not! But if your willing to think outside the box then this maybe a interesting theory for you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Concretelycan

I agree with you One hundred percent you can't get something from nothing, This is something I strugled with growing up in a cristian home however I can give you two examples one from each side.

First off the non believers you can't get something from nothing that is correct based off of
everything we know and what our experiance teaches us growing up, For example you put a fire craker inside a glass cube and sispend that from a scale giving you a weight now regardless of what it wheighs if you set it off will the box wheigh the same? Most people would assume no because there is no fire cracker left however the box will wieght the same everytime, Why? Because the powder and everything that made up the firework has now been turned to gas or smoke however the weight still remains the same!

Now if your able to think outside the box for just one moment and concider the possability that the universe and I dont me god! Has its own set of rules not like what we all believe
is it possible that what most of us believe is parcialy a buyproduct of what our parents have engrained into us? Perhaps society? Or is it simply because we can't wrap our minds of which we only us ten percent of around the possability that a human's perseption of thing works much like every other species. Take a great white shark for instance usualy when a shark approches a object of which it cannot understand it becomes cureus and will test the object by rubbing up against it and biting it. Is this much different than a child learning and testing new things? Instanly learning the first time it cry's out in hunger pains and gets a bottle, or cry's and gets picked up, These thing's become programed into our minds as fact and reality!

The point Im trying to make here is that is it mabe possible that the reason we believe we can't get something from nothing is because thats what we live what we see?
We cannot understand it because everything on our planet lives and die's, Its bourne and then expires, Our brains simply cannot comprehend always has been because we and everything around us are not! But if your willing to think outside the box then this maybe a interesting theory for you!

---

df

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Okay - what mutaions led to the development of the eye,
flight in birds
bipedalism in humans
echolocation in bats
from invertebrates to vertebrates
exo vs endo skeletons
etc..
these cannot be "proved" or "tested"





mutations are responsible for:

cystic fibrosis
sickle cell
huntington's
Tay sachs
breast cancer [ brca 1 ]
certain post chemo leukemias
muscular dystrophy
certain types of alzheimer's
Crohn's [ nod 2 ]
some forms of colon cancer

the list of medical diseases caused or associated with or a increased risk for
by gene mutations grows every year, but this is the process by which we are to have developed from a single cell? Remember selection cannot work if there are no mutations.

---

If you're really interested in learning about mutations, differing mutation rates across species, and how mutation rates within a species change in response to environmental conditions, check out Evolving Mistakes - The Wild Side - Olivia Judson. If your mind is closed on the subject and you aren't willing to open it again, don't bother.

Oh, and inthebox, some variants of sickle cell anemia have resistance to malaria - so it has it's advantages in places like africa where malaria is rampant.

Hi everyone -

I am just popping in to say hello and just comment on how bright you folks are. I truly mean that.

You possess such great blessings.

That's all I can contribute - as I'm lost on the outside - but I just had to share my observation.

I do often wonder sometimes, this may sound strange, but does it get to be frustrating when you are so bright, see things so clear, as clear as day, and then there are folks, like myself, not ashamed to admit it, have no clue what you are talking about?

I am not putting myself down, honest I am not. I just wonder if it can get frustrating.

Carry on :).

It only gets frustrating when people argue out of ignorance. It is perfectly acceptable to say that a scientific theory is wrong, if you have proof it's wrong or there is no proof it's right, but when you don't understand the theory that your claiming to be wrong that gets annoying.

Gotcha.

You'll never catch me doing that :).

My post on faith are just based on what I do know.

The Science stuff, which I am so incredibly impressed with Scientist and Engineers minds,
But it's almost like another language.

But I would never say it's wrong, when I don't know what it is. :)

I just recogonize the intellectual gifts that people have. My husband is very smart and sometimes he gives me a very funny look.

Guess I am trying to say is I respect and am in awe of all of your intellegence and hope that you do enjoy that.

There are times that am glad that I am in the dark - Sometimes to know so much is not always a blessing. Not even on this topic, politics, life , people.

Anyway - Embrace your blessings - I truly think it's wonderful.

Like I said Cap.

Brca is associated with a higher risk for breast cancer.

A single amino acid substitutionis responsible for sickle cell.

Again what SPECIFIC mutation is responsible for bipedalism or echolation?

What specific gene or mutation is responsible for a sub 4 minute mile?
Name names.

How do you control for training, shoes, nutrition, wind, better expression of an allele that has always been present? Jimmy the Greek sound familiar?



Do humans that can dunk have different genes than the rest of us? A hundred thousand or more base pairs in their dna?

Read more about mutations and disease - the science is there if you're willing to do the research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

Hi everyone -

I am just popping in to say hello and just comment on how bright you folks are. I truly mean that.

You possess such great blessings.

That's all I can contribute - as I'm lost on the outside - but I just had to share my observation.

I do often wonder sometimes, this may sound strange, but does it get to be frustrating when you are so bright, see things so clear, as clear as day, and then their are folks, like myself, not ashamed to admit it, have no clue what you are talking about?

I am not putting myself down, honest I am not. I just wonder if it can get frustrating.

Carry on :).

---

I agree with you Allheart most things go right over my head

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nicki143

I agree with you Allheart most things go right over my head

---

LOL I kind of like in the world of Fog :)

Colon cancer test maker's shares soar - Daily Business Update - The Boston Globe



"Exact Sciences makes a noninvasive test in which a patient collects a stool sample at home and ships it to a lab that analyzes the DNA to look for MUTATIONS that could indicate COLON CANCER."



Yeah I'm reading ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Read more about mutations and disease - the science is there if you're willing to do the research.

---

Nobody is arguing that all mutations are beneficial or denying that most mutations are harmful. But you seem to be arguing that mutations can never be beneficial, and therefore that mutations cannot produce successful evolutionary innovations. If that's your position, you're the one who needs to "read more about mutations". A good starting point would be the link I provided above.

inthebox, there are no single genes for the beneficial adaptations you listed. The things you listed are complicated things that evolve over large stretches of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Nobody is arguing that all mutations are beneficial or denying that most mutations are harmful. But you seem to be arguing that mutations can never be beneficial, and therefore that mutations cannot produce successful evolutionary innovations. If that's your position, you're the one who needs to "read more about mutations". A good starting point would be the link I provided above.

---

Read your link -

viruses and bacteria, due to their high reproductive rates mutate an enormous amount of times over a short period. The article claims 100,000 deleterious mutations to one beneficial. But no where does it state or even imply that despite all these mutations e.coli remains e.coli, influenza remains influenza. No "proof" that humans came from single celled organisms. No "macroevolution"

Well.

I'd just like to point out that we haven't been watching those bacteria for millions of years yet, either.

Macroevolution was made up by the creationist to make evolution sound implausible. Macroevolution doesn't exist. There are no great leaps in evolution like you are thinking.
What you get are minor almost undetectable changes that add up to great leaps over thousands of years. That is why Darwin himself said that if any organ was found that didn't break down into a simpler form it would disprove his entire theory.
Evolution for the most part is slooowwww. That's why it takes thousands of years for species to evolve.

Also just so you know almost every scientist out there would love to disprove evolution. If I could disprove evolution as a valid theory, I would do it in a heart beat. Why would I do that you ask? Simple I want to be better known than those that came before me and who better to debunk than Darwin. It's what scientist do, they seek knowledge not cover it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

No "proof" that humans came from single celled organisms. no "macroevolution"

---

The physical and life sciences deal in inferences and interpretations, not proof. If it's proof you're after study mathematics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Also just so you know almost every scientist out there would love to disprove evolution. If I could disprove evolution as a valid theory, I would do it in a heart beat. Why would I do that you ask? Simple I want to be better known than those that came before me and who better to debunk than Darwin. It's what scientist do, they seek knowledge not cover it up.

---

This is very true, it's almost like creationists think that evolution was thought up to challenge creation. That's very arrogant of them. Scientists couldn't give a rat's behind. They want a better model for the world, if they end up crushing some widely held delusions then that's just the way it goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

read your link -

viruses and bacteria, due to their high reproductive rates mutate an enormous amount of times over a short period of time. The article claims 100,000 deleterious mutations to one beneficial. But no where does it state or even imply that despite all these mutations e.coli remains e.coli, influenza remains influenza. No "proof" that humans came from single celled organisms. no "macroevolution"

---

We know that multicellular life took 3.5 billion years to form on Earth. It's a hard thing to do. You need a lot of time, even reproducing at the rate of bacteria or viruses.

Scoop: Mazur: Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?

A bunch of evolutionists and they can't even agree among themselves. Some interseting excerpts:


"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is JUST WHAT HAPPENED TO HAPPEN."




"Pigliucci cites epigenetic inheritance as one of the mechanisms that Darwin knew nothing about. He says there is mounting empirical evidence to "suspect" there's a whole additional layer chemically on top of the genes that is inherited but is not DNA. Darwin, of course, did not even know of the existence of DNA"



-----Evolution cannot explain DNA and yet these scientists think there is something more complex than just genes involved? ------



"Thus the scramble at Altenberg for a new theory of evolution.

But Kauffman also describes genes as "utterly dead". However, he says there are some genes that turn the rest of the genes and one another on and off. Certain chemical reactions happen. Enzymes are produced, etc. And that while we only have 25,000 to 30,000 genes, there are many combinations of activity.

Here's what he told me over the phone:


"Well there's 25,000 genes, so each could be on or off. So there's 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times. Well that's 2 to the 25,000th. Right? Which is something like 10 to the 7,000th. Okay? There's only 10 to the 80th particles in the whole universe. ARE YOU STUNNED?"




No wonder they are scratiching their heads: trying to fgure out how what is actually known fits into the evolutionary theory.