[michealb]

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.

Amazing, how about the blind painter, or the adult human calculator or the synesthetic.
I wonder what exact genes led to this ability?

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.

[inthebox]

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

[michealb]

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.

[asking]

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.

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.)

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).

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.

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.

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.

[michealb]

Okay point taken on the sexual selection my way is funnier but your right.

[asking]

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...
You are very kind to even acknowledge my rant. :)

Your way is funnier.

[sassyT]

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.
Evolution is science based, and therefore should be part of the school curriculum in the science of physics section.

:)

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.

[sassyT]

I thought that the experiment that produced E coli that could process citrate was a pretty compelling for mutations being able to add useful code but I'm not a biology student what do I know. :)
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist

The creationist argument for the tails in humans is that it's not really a tail it just looks like a tail. It's just a clump of skin since most of the time the tail doesn't have any bones in it.

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

[excon]

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

[sassyT]

[

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.

The Evolutionist's last famous last words. :rolleyes:

[Credendovidis]

The Evolutionist's last famous last words.

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.
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

[asking]

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

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.

[asking]

The Evolutionist's last famous last words. :rolleyes:

Not my last words. :)

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?

[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.
But that is for them no reason to believe in invisible deities with extreme interests in every human being's sexual habits.

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.

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!

[excon]

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.

Hello 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

[De Maria]

.
One of the latests ICR articles on some Artificial DNA Molecule :

Recently ... Japanese chemists have discovered how to mimic DNA ... According to the American Chemical Society, "The researchers used high-tech DNA synthesis equipment to stitch together four entirely new, artificial bases inside of the sugar-based framework of a DNA molecule. This resulted in unusually stable, double-stranded structures resembling natural DNA." .... If high-tech equipment is required simply to mimic DNA, then how much more "high tech" must the mind and power of God be for inventing it?

My comments :

It is totally irrelevant in the case of artificial DNA to refer to the ICR's claims of "Godly involvement" in design of real natural DNA.
Trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of cells daily use natural DNA to produce new cells. Without any need for any high-tech equipment.

All that these Japanese chemist prove is that it is not easy to develop a simple DNA structure for data storage.
No wonder of course, as it took nature more than 3.500.000.000 years to perfect the DNA process to what it is today.

But to see the hand of a not-proved-to-exist-entity in this all is a conclusion that shows that these Japanese chemists are a lot smarter than the staff of the ICR !

Link to the article : World's First Artificial DNA Molecule (Well, Almost)

ICR's First Intelligent Article ? No. Not even almost. Not even near ....

Any comments?

·

Actually, the ICR logic is sound.

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

[michealb]

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.

[inthebox]

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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?

This is non sequitur logic.

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.

No of course not. Recreating random events can be just as difficult as recreating designed objects.

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?

So your argument that if it takes intelligences to recreate it, it must have take intelligences to create is flawed.

You've misrepresented my argument. Perhaps you've missed the other threads in which this subject has been discussed.

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

[michealb]

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.