 |
Creationism and ID are items that are religion based, and therefore should be or can be part of the school curriculum in the section philosophy or religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Evolution is science based, and therefore should be part of the school curriculum in the science of physics section.
:)
Sarcasm is stating the opposite of an intended meaning especially in order to sneeringly, slyly, jest or mock a person, situation or thing.
I think we all speak fluent sarcasm here. :)
Sure : sarcasm is all that, but an appropriate smilie helps to indicate that !
And yes, many experts on this board . Experts from all different world views !
What else should be expected when the ICR's hypocrisy is the topic's subject ?
:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
So we are back to the mutation is good argument when the objective scientific evidence proves otherwise.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...ml#post1203474
So you can't know and unaswerable? So evolution relies on faith :cool:
What are the specific mutated genes that caused human speech [ compared with other primates ] ?
What mutated genes caused bipedalism? Religious belief? Alturism? Self awareness?
Artistry? Love? Charity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Rehashing microevolution?
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...ml#post1186182
What about the topic? The invalidity of the arguments and the deliberate misleading by the ICR to oppose scientific research and findings, in it's quest to "spread the word"??
Isn't there anything beyond immoral and unethical thinking for the ICR ?
Do you approve spreading deliberate lies to "spread the word"??
:rolleyes:
·
·
Mutations are either both good and bad or neither depending on how you look at it. Basically, they are amoral. They are just changes. Whether they make an organism behave well or badly is in the eye of the beholder. Whether they make an organism more fit for its current environment or less fit depends on the current environment (and not future environment). So it makes no sense to say mutations are good, or bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Saying mutations are bad is like saying rain is always bad. But the opposite isn't true either.
As for bipedalism etc, large numbers of genes (and ALL genes are mutated) cause all those things, not single genes. There isn't ONE gene for such traits, or indeed most traits. Very few traits are single gene traits. In school students are only taught about really obvious deleterious recessives, but that doesn't mean that's all there is.
Anyway, there is endless evidence for behavioral traits like the ones you mention having a genetic basis. That DOESN'T mean that behavior is ALL genetic, I hasten to add. But it does mean that a proportion of personality and tendencies to behave in certain ways are inherited, in both humans and non human animals. That's why you can breed for gentleness in domestic animals or aggressiveness if you want something that fights or hunts. But those genes for behavior are often linked to other traits.
For example, when some researchers tried to domestic foxes being raised for their fur, they got foxes that were easier to deal with--more like dogs. BUT the foxes barked like dogs (and fox puppies), which adult foxes don't normally do AND the fox's fur was all different colors, like dogs'. So the fur was ruined by breeding for that puppy-like, eager to please trait. That's why it's much harder to find the exact set of genes for a given trait, because it's probably a whole bunch of genes, each of which does 10 different things. So in the wild, those puppylike behaviors are not "good" in an adult fox. But in the lab, they become "good," because we want them.
I think it IS immoral to lie about science, to deliberately promulgate ignorance. But that's just my brand of morality. And I know that people have different ways of justifying these things--chief among them, lying to themselves. To a degree, everyone deceives themselves about things they don't want to deal with. For me, the question about the individual members of the ICR is, How cynical are they? I don't know that without getting to know them better as individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I doubt any of these people would cop to spreading lies. They will just turn it around and accuse biologists of spreading lies, of being in a vast conspiracy of hundreds of thousands (more?) scientists, all covering up the truth. I wonder how many biologists there are in the world?
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
"Mutations are amoral"
Tell that to women with the brca mutation - surely anyone with commonsense knows that that is a bad mutation. Or those with the mutated genes for digeorge's, alzheimer's, colon cancer, etc...
See the links to I've provided.
Survival Of The Fittest: Even Cancer Cells Follow The Laws Of Evolution
Quote:
500,000 cancer mutation records from the Catalog of Somatic Mutations in Cancer database
Now how about actually naming the "beneficial" mutations? Prove it.
Here is another commonsense question:
If the very first cars broke down every mile for every mile they functioned, how far do you think consumers would have demanded them. Would there be any consumer demand [ selection ] for them?
Evolutionists would have us believe that the primary means of evolving is mutations yet the objective scientific evidence demonstrates that mutations are harmful
Don't you get the science channel? They just had a show on two nights ago where they were talking about human mutants. They had on this one guy who was able to run 13 miles bare foot in his underwear in the snow in -27F degree weather. Not one did this guy live but he didn't suffer from frost bite. Sounds like a good mutation to me at least if you live in a cold weather area at least might be a bad mutation if you live in the Caribbean.
Hmmm... I am yet to see evidence for Macro evolution. As far as I am concerned there is NONE. But again, you are welcome to prove me wrong. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
No actually it doesn't answer my challenge because that so called "tail" is not "new" information.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
The Indian baby's "tail", like nearly all cases of human "tails", is not a tail. It doesn't have any bones in it neither does it have a nerve cord.
That so called tail is nothing but skin and fatty tissue, and can easily be cut off.
As biologist Dr. Gary Parker once said about these fatty tumor "tails": “So far as I know, no one claims we evolved from an animal with a fatty tumor at the end of its spine.”
So that does not constitute new information, sorry :(
Again, a Human baby born with feathers, fish scales, pigs feet, dog ears, hooves, cat claws, wiskers, four legs, something along those lines, would constitute new information. Or if you can show me a bird that hatches with scales instead of feathers or a fish that hatches with dog like fur instead of scales... etc
Sassy, please see what I posted on this earlier. According to the source I posted most of these tails are true tails--about 2/3rds and have nerves and blood vessels. And some even have vertebrae. The Barbary macaque's vestigial tail has no vertebrae, so there's a consistent pattern there. It makes sense that when we rarely grow tails, they wouldn't have vertebrae most of the time. I read that some tails have as many as 5 vertebrae. That's a lot (and so creepy!).Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
So that does not constitute new information, sorry :(
I agree it's not new information, but that's only because we are carrying genetic information for structures we no longer use. We have the genes to make tails because we are descended from animals that had tails. In any case, the embryonic tail is unquestionably homologous with the tails of other vertebrates, including reptiles and birds. Likewise, as I mentioned earlier, birds carry the genetic information to make regular teeth, even though modern birds have no teeth. There are lots of examples like these.
Birds' legs do have scales on them. Check out the chicken legs at the butcher's.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
[QUOTE]Hi Asking please see attatched photo and tell me if that's a tail...Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
So that does not constitute new information, sorry :(
Wow wow wow, wait a minute... Did we evolve from monkeys or apes? Monkeys generally have tails and apes don't. If evolutionists believe that the "tail" is evidence that we evolved from monkey-type creatures, why do they insist that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes, which don't have tails? Which is it?Quote:
I agree it's not new information, but that's only because we are carrying genetic information for structures we no longer use. We have the genes to make tails because we are descended from animals that had tails. In any case, the embryonic tail is unquestionably homologous with the tails of other vertebrates, including reptiles and birds. Likewise, as I mentioned earlier, birds carry the genetic information to make regular teeth, even though modern birds have no teeth. There are lots of examples like these.
And isn't natural selection supposed to favor improvements, and not impediments? Why then would natural selection cause something as useful as a tail to wither into an encumbrance and then disappear?
I personaly think a tail would be very useful to humans. Like right now, I could use a tail sip my tea while I type.. :D
Asking I am talking about a bird born with fish scales instead of feathers.Quote:
Birds' legs do have scales on them. Check out the chicken legs at the butcher's.
Sassy, hun, apes evolved from animals with tails too.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
[QUOTE=sassyT]Hi Asking please see attatched photo and tell me if that's a tail... [QUOTE]
Where is attachment? In any case, it wouldn't help. I think you need to be an expert and have it in front of you to tell the difference between a true tail and a pseudo tail. There ARE pseudo tails, as Creationists often point out, but not all human tails are pseudo tails. As I said, most are real enough, though decidedly weird.
Both! Great Apes (chimps, bonobos, orangutans, and gorillas) are all old world animals (Africa and Asia). They are descended from a lineage of primates that were more monkey like and had tails. The "New World" monkeys (South America) are, confusingly, a more ancient lineage than the "Old World" monkeys. So to sum up, apes are descended from ancient monkeys (not modern ones, but we'd call them monkeys if they were alive today).Quote:
wow wow wow, wait a minute... Did we evolve from monkeys or apes?
And that's why both human embryos and ape embryos start with tails, too. The tail is absorbed early in development as the genes sort of remember they aren't supposed to make a tail (I'm anthropomorphizing here, so I don't mean that literally).
Both. Monkeylike ancestor --> Apelike ancestor --> Hominid (A. afarensis, A. africans, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc) --> Homo sapiensQuote:
If evolutionists believe that the "tail" is evidence that we evolved from monkey-type creatures, why do they insist that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes, which don't have tails? Which is it?
Not exactly. Selection favors whatever works in the moment. At some point, tails must have become an impediment.Quote:
And isn't natural selection supposed to favor improvements, and not impediments?
Good question, Sassy! I don't know the answer. Probably some paleoprimatologist does though. We could look it up. At the risk of patronizing you, I want to say that this is one of the things I like about you. You ask good questions and think well.Quote:
Why then would natural selection cause something as useful as a tail to wither into an encumbrance and then disappear?
Me too! I think it sounds like fun. But none of the apes have them and it looks like they lost them a long time ago, 25 or 30 million years ago.Quote:
I personaly think a tail would be very useful to humans. Like right now, I could use a tail sip my tea while I type.. :D
Actually, Richard Dawkins also thinks it's an interesting question too. Here's his book, The Ancestor's Tale, at Google books.
The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to ... - Google Book Search
Yeah. But you can't argue with them having both. :) Enjoy your tea.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Perhaps it's the fault of women, we have no tails. Sexual selection can play a part in evolution as well. Which can get rid of a useful trait because for some reason the sexual selector of the species decides as a group they don't like that feature.
Yeah, blame it on Eve. ;) That kind of selection more often only affects the males anyway (think peacocks' tails), not both sexes, and, anyway, the males are active participants in the process, flaunting their fancy colors and trying to out do each other with eye-catching displays. And the fighting equipment, horns and antlers, gets selected by other males more than by the females, as they fight each other for the right to monopolize females.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Michealb, I'll confess right now that this is a biological pet peeve of mine and I really ought to put it in that other thread. :) The idea that any kind of selection, sexual or otherwise, can select for maladaptive traits is just wrong, so even if you were right about our tails, there would be no "fault."
By definition, selection selects what leaves the most offspring in that generation. Period. (No planning for the future involved.) It doesn't matter whether the selective force is random fluctuations in temperature, an increase in rainfall or predators, or female preference. (Often enough it's a combination of different forces, many of them conflicting.) Bottom line, it's still selection for what works BEST in that generation. The idea that females somehow -- differently from all other selective forces -- do something *bad* is just nonsensical--although, unfortunately, it's still presented that way in many textbooks. We need to let go of this idea. It's bad biology AND one of the sillier forms of sexism, in my humble opinion. Just as we don't say that mutations are good or bad, we don't assign moral value to selective forces found in nature*.
(*I would personally argue that selecting for dogs that have major disabilities like hip dysplasia or apnea is a form of cruelty, however.)
I know I've really gotten off Cred's topic now. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
I saw that too!
Amazing, how about the blind painter, or the adult human calculator or the synesthetic.
I wonder what exact genes led to this ability?
Sexual selection isn't a bad thing. It just sometimes picks things that are contrary to the long term survival of the individual creature. Which if the selection continues can cause the extinctions of the species if it get out of hand.
As do scientists, that was sort of the point of the show. It's not easy though to determine what a gene does in living person. As our biology knowledge gets better hopefully we will be able to turn on and off genes in living people and add new ones. For now though that is beyond our ability.Quote:
Amazing, how about the blind painter, or the adult human calculator or the synesthetic.
I wonder what exact genes led to this ability?
Can I use that as a pick up line ?
"I have mutant genes that allow me to turn up my body heat so I can always keep you warm, so lets procreate and evolve." :D
I suppose you could try. Not saying that it would work however if you happen to find yourself nearly naked with a member of the opposite sex in a very cold environment it very well might work in that case.
But that is obviously bad, the way you are describing it. Female whim selecting for traits that kill males? Sounds bad to me! (This is incorrect, but I want to make another point.)Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
My main point is that everything you've suggested here is true of ALL selection; it is not specific to sexual selection. It doesn't matter what the source of the selection pressure is; it can counteract other pressures that are important to survival. So, to pick an obvious example, selection for a big brain conflicts with pressure for an easy birth. It does a baby no good to kill its mother and yet to compete, it wants a bigger brain. Which wins out in any given generation depends on a whole bunch of other variables. But there's no right genetic answer to this problem. It will be different for every individual.
Or you could imagine that selection for big seeds conflicting with having lots of seeds. A population of plants could need lots of big seeds, but it can't have that because a given plant only has access to so much energy; it's limited. So any selection one way or the other is going to conflict with another need; the two pressures oppose each other.
In both cases, selection can (and will) pick things that are contrary to long-term survival of a population of individuals. But it doesn't matter what the source of the selection pressure is. The short-term cost/benefit rules are the same. Whatever "type" ends up producing the most offspring in that generation wins that round (and only that round).
We can already turn genes on and off in other mammals. The problem is that it's dangerous to do that in people (and in mice, but we don't care about that). But most traits are controlled by lots of genes, and most genes affect lots of traits, so to really influence how a person comes out, we would have to be able to control the expression of long lists of genes. I don't see that happening any time soon. To me that's probably a good thing. Most of the commonest diseases--heart disease, diabetes, many cancers-- are primarily caused by our behavior, being sedentary, eating poorly, etc. not by specific genetic defects.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Molecular biologists look at genes for answers to disease problems for the same reason drunks look for their lost car keys under the streetlight. There's more light there and it's easier to look. But that doesn't mean that's where the keys are.
Okay point taken on the sexual selection my way is funnier but your right.
I told you it was a pet peeve. I've been thinking about this off and on for 20 years...Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
You are very kind to even acknowledge my rant. :)
Your way is funnier.
Evolution is a theory that many believers in the unproven theory have accepted as fact by FAITH. So it has become a belief system that is not based on any scientific facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
But these so called human tails are not only found at the bottom of the spine or anywhere near the coccyx. They have been found to grow on other parts of the body. So is this so called human tail (see pic) also a remnant of some animal we decended from? Lol evolution is such a fantacy :D
Hello again, Cred:
There are some people who believed that their lord and savior was hiding behind an approaching comet, so they got rid of their earthly bodies (killed their selves), so they could float up to meet him. There was a BUNCH of 'em too.
There are others that think the world will be destroyed and they'll float up into the sky cause they're good and everybody else is bad.
Yup! The religious disease has infected lots of people. There ain't no cure for it, either. Too bad - another lost soul. Oh well.
excon
The Evolutionist's last famous last words. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
At least those who base their views on science and OSE have the greatness to ADMIT that there are things we just do not know, even things we will never know.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
But that is for them no reason to believe in invisible deities with extreme interests in every human being's sexual habits.
:D :D :D :D :D :D
The pictures you posted are of an unfortunate child with some kind of yucky birth defect that is not a tail. Lots of things are not tails. My arm is not a tail. But that has no influence on the vestigial organs that ARE tails. Humans do occasionally have vestigial tails.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Not my last words. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
I was just trying to be nice.
I consider myself a biologist, by the way. Calling people "evolutionists" is about like calling Christians "Christianists." Or Republicans "Palinists." I'll call you what you want to be called if you call me what I want to be called. "Evolutionary biologist" is good. Biologist is good. Evolutionist sounds weird to me. It's a relatively recent coinage of the last 10 years or so mostly used by Creationists, which I assume IS an acceptable term?
I actually like all the things we don't know. Where would be the pleasure in exploring if we knew what was around every corner? Complete understanding wouldn't be any fun. Religion gives the illusion of understanding the world without either the process of learning or the delight of discovery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I do like the religious appreciation for "God's creations," in which God's works are viewed as miracles to be appreciated. But then, I think, it's rude to stop there and not try to understand the intricacies of these "creations." Such anti intellectualism is not confined to religion. I remember going hiking with some hippies in the 60s and they told me not to tell the names of any plants, animals, or rocks. No science. They said it would ruin their experience of nature to know anything about it. Waaaa?? I was just a kid and tried this idea on for a while, to see if I thought there was any truth in it. I quickly rejected it!
Hello asking:Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
"The delight of discovery". Couldn't have said it any plainer than that. Can you imagine where we'd be without that? I could. I'll bet they'd call it the Dark Ages.
excon
Actually, the ICR logic is sound.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
If it takes so much intelligence to mimic dna, how much more intelligence to not only created dna, but the living organisms which would use it?
Your logic seems to be:
Although we have no evidence of dna occurring from lifeless unintelligent matter and the only evidence we have is that intelligent people using many sophisticated tools finally created something which mimics dna. Yet you believe that dna could happen by unintelligent processies.
Now, since logic is a requirement for science. You've thrown out that requirement and are making an unscientific speculative statement of belief against the OE. And then you expect us to accept your belief.
Sincerely,
De Maria
I was at the beach last week and I noticed that the waves had grouped shells by size in different locations. It would take intelligence to duplicate it but it was created by the random action of the waves.
Oh a better example if small pebbles were to break of a cliff and fall to the ground. It would take intelligence to put the same type of rocks in the same positions. Does that mean god had put the pebbles in the complex pattern on the ground when they fell?
No of course not. Recreating random events can be just as difficult as recreating designed objects. So your argument that if it takes intelligences to recreate it, it must have take intelligences to create is flawed.
prove that dna was randomly created !
here is more food for thought as to the complexity of life
Do 68 Molecules Hold The Key To Understanding Disease?
Scientific experiments are reproducible. Can you reproduce that event? If not, then you can't conclude that it was order. All you can say is that YOU perceived order in a place where you didn't expect to see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
In addition, random events are influenced by laws of nature. Heavier objects go deeper into watery environments than lighter objects which go higher. Therefore, the order is produced by the order in nature (the laws) not by the randomness of the waves but by the order of the Law which requires matter to behave in a certain manner consistent with its attributes.
This is non sequitur logic.Quote:
Oh a better example if small pebbles were to break of a cliff and fall to the ground. It would take intelligence to put the same type of rocks in the same positions. Does that mean god had put the pebbles in the complex pattern on the ground when they fell?
First, the random position of the pebbles is called by you "a pattern". But that is only true after the fact. The random event which stuck them there was following no pattern. They just fell there. Now you ascribe a pattern to them.
Do you see the same pattern duplicated at random anywhere else? Of course not. But an intelligent being can reproduce what he sees in those random pebbles. Esentially using them as a pattern to follow.
In other words, random events caused random results to which you, an intelligent being, now ascribe a pattern.
All you have to do is wait for the same pattern to be produced by random unintelligent events. Which will succeed first, the intelligent being using them as a pattern or the random, unintelligent movement of air and water?Quote:
No of course not. Recreating random events can be just as difficult as recreating designed objects.
You've misrepresented my argument. Perhaps you've missed the other threads in which this subject has been discussed.Quote:
So your argument that if it takes intelligences to recreate it, it must have take intelligences to create is flawed.
I said it takes intelligence to create intelligent results.
Do you agree that dna is a language which carries messages throughout an organism?
If so, then I ask you, if you see the words "give me a donut" etched in the sand, do you assume that the movement of the waves wrote it there? Or do you assume that this was done by a human being?
Obviously since you are only aware of human beings who are capable of writing these type of messages, you will assume a human being.
Now, dna messages are far more complex than "give me a donut". Even the simplest organisms have messages which rival the power of a super computer.
But you assume that the dna message was created by random unintelligent events?
That is simply speculating against the evidence.
Sincerely,
De Maria
I haven't seen "give me a donut" but I have seen a picture of Jesus in the random wood grain of a bathroom door and picture is worth a thousand words right so. I have seen complex patterns in randomness that duplicates something that has already existed. So do you like that example better?
Complex random chemical reaction follow the same law of order as the pebbles and it's these complex chemical reactions that created life.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:50 PM. |