Of course they change randomly, it's called mutation. See, this just proves more conclusively that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.Quote by: Heehoos
If you were educated, you wouldn't keep making such basic mistakes and fundamental errors.I am educated. I'm on a debate forum where people have said repeatedly that Creationists are idiots for believing what they do. I've been asked repeatedly to prove the existance of God. It's your turn.
There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.
Yes, there are internal twins, it's a rare case where, in utero, one twin absorbs the other and remains as a remnant inside the other. In most cases, the living twin never knows they've got the remains of their sibling inside, it's only when it starts causing problems that it needs to be surgically removed. The more recognized cases are those where the twin is only partially absorbed and you have parts of the twin sticking out externally.
There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.
Yes. It is called random mutation. Why don't you read a little on the subject.But if they were dormant genes, why would they have changed in the first place? Do our genes just change randomly?
Random mutation happens. That is how bacteria become resistant to anti-bacterial agents. That is how viruses come back year afetr year in a slightly different form and we need to develop new vaccines. That is how evolution works.
The term your are looking for here is exaptation.The problem is developing completely new genes -- the development of limbs where there wer none. Or of segmented bodies. Or the development of wings or feathers. These parts that are added out of nowhere
I don't think you studied biology very deeply. Feathers are essencially reptilian scales drawn out into a different shape. Wings are improvised arms.
It's very clear when creationists don't have a clue what they're arguing against, they say the most ridiculous and assinine things and leave you wondering where the hell they heard it from.
The #1 cause of creationism is utter ignorance of science.
There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.
Agreed. Heehos as presented several statements that are analogous to, "I've studied the New Testament. How man disciples were there again?..."
So in order to talk about anything, the prospective participant must be a master of the subject? Majors, degrees, and everything?
That somewhat narrows the scope of communication in general. : /
Anyway, Heehos already stated that he asks questions as a way of furthering debate and conversation. He asks questions and invites you to answer them. Once that ground is settled, the debate can move on.
Or maybe I'm just clueless.
Additionally, I have to say that in any debate on the topic of evolution, the one "attacking" it is at a severe disadvantage because the "defender" of it has so much (percieved irrefutable) evidence behind them that they don't even bother with trying to support it on their own. To make the debate at all contested or fulfilling, the supporter of evolution cannot simply assume the theory is correct, since they themselves don't allow creationists to do so with Creationism. As Heehos said,
"I am educated. I'm on a debate forum where people have said repeatedly that Creationists are idiots for believing what they do. I've been asked repeatedly to prove the existance of God. It's your turn."
I think this kinda correlates to the atheist apologists' argument of the problem of evil. It states the assumption that God is omnipotent and omni-benevolent. It also states, though, that evil exists, so if God is omnipotent and allows evil to exist then He's not benevolent because He lets it exist. If God is benevolent and allows evil to exist, then He's not omnipotent because He can't stop the evil.
However, a notable theist apologists' objection to this argument is that although God has the capacity to be omnipotent and omni-benevolent, He doesn't necessarily have to fulfill that capacity at all times. In fact, He might determine that there is a more utilitarian and teleologically beneficial outcome for not fulfilling His capacity. For instance, He might think it good if evil exists and humans are forced to go through the tests of temptation, sin, and such. There are also some other objections such as the free will defense, but that's not directly relevant to the point that I'm making.
So, along the same lines, although God could have created "perfect" humans and fulfilled His capacity for omni-intelligence, He doesn't necessarily have to since there might be a greater, ulterior purpose for not doing so. It might His biological test of our survival, an epistemological test of our belief in Him, or even an amusing game to see how we compare to other organisms.
Nonetheless, I'm not trying to prove the existence or non-existence of God through any of this. I'm just saying that your argument is flawed. By the way, I believe in the existence of God, but that shouldn't be relevant to my objection.
Last edited by Epistemologist; 18th December 2006 at 05:11 PM. Reason: Accidentally mistook "there" for "their"
best site ever!
Lolcats
Regarding the term evolution:
Okay, I understand where the miscommunication is coming from... the difference (as ItsDarts pointed out) between regular evolution and single origin evolution (the evolution of many species from a single cell or whatever)
RickSP: I agree with the doctor that it is evolution. There are fluxes and changes in proportion with dominant genes in a population. That is still considered evolution, even if these genes are dormant in the population to begin with. My issue is the second use of the word evolution -- that where a single living cell is formed at all, let alone becomes sentient beings with a multitude of varying creatures over time.
For the record, I am neither a creationist or evolutionist. I challenge both. I like how the non-theists get on theists for their beliefs, but won't allow the THEORY of evolution to be challenged simply because I believe in God. Evolution is not a proven fact. It is a theory. It's an interesting one, and there is some biology to back it up, but there are bits missing.
Regarding Random Mutation:
Yes, random mutation happens. But mutations RARELY end up as part of genetic code that is passed from parent to offspring. Do the math. If you have one allele in a parent and the offspring has 1/4 the chance of having that allele, and it is the only offspring, and mates with another without the allele that makes it 1/8th possibility in their offspring. Etc. It is rare that a mutation is ever passed on.
Yes, DNA is a series of letters (four nucleotides, AGCT which are only part of the protein) sort of. Basically strands of DNA make up genes and each gene has a series of information -- the assorted allele possibilities for that individual's genetic makeup. Different configurations of the AGCT nucleotides turn the genes "on" or "off" (this is where the whole eye color change and the lactose tolerance examples come in).
There are different variations that can happen to a DNA makeup which include an addition of a "letter" which sets everything else off (called a "frame shift" mutatino), a point mutation which is the changing of one letter, the deletion of a letter (which can also result in a frame shift), and others. The problem is, many of these mutations will result in an incomplete protein, or a strand that is inert or can cause damage to the organism (cancer for example).
It's just that in many cases the odds are against good mutations sticking with a population. And it's even more rare that a mutation would be a positive one.
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. - Max Planck, Father of Quantum Theory
Ad Hoc. Because I am a theist I know nothing of science? That is repulsive reasoning.
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. - Max Planck, Father of Quantum Theory
Where are the examples of in-between mutations then? And in the very very gradual process of evolution, how could 5% of a feather's or a wing's development be any use to the creature to the point where natural selection would maintain it (or rather, vice versa)? The the theory behind this type of evolution is that the mutations are either inert enough to be unharmful to the organism or they are "good" enough that natural selection sort of supports their maintenance in the species. How is 5% or 10% of a feather or wing or third leg useful?
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. - Max Planck, Father of Quantum Theory
You have yet to make one scientific argument in this thread to any of the questions I've posed. Got anything other than insults?
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. - Max Planck, Father of Quantum Theory
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks