Evolution My ToE

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, so I have a question. Is mutation necessary for evolution?

Heritable variation is necessary and mutation is the primary source of that variation.

 

[nPeace]

If you'll recall, I asked you what your intent was with the request for "top seven evidences for UCA", and you didn't say. As I noted, that play has been run to death here, so why are you so keen to repeat it yet again?

But if you are intent on leaving, it'll be yet another instance where you find ways to halt the discussion once it turns to you answering questions about your views.

Seriously hilarious, but I am not laughing. After 72 pages, where I conversed with you for more 40... likely 50, this is the first time you are questioning me on my views. Absolutely hilarious!

Be the genius. Form your hypothesis. Gather your evidence. Apply it all to you. Declare your theory a fact. Genius.
Not surprised. Only we both know what are the real issues here, you would like to cover up.

Just go back and check how many questions you asked me on my views, and how many times I found ways to shut that discussion down. Truly... and I made a thread where I didn't expect to be questioned. Wow. I should be the genius here, but you are. All the facts are on your side.
Go eat drink and rejoice.

 

[shunyadragon]

That doesn't matter that the varying opinions on the electronic media replaces most textbooks. Whch is sad anyway. I was reading an article in National Geographic trying to explain why people lie. It's like embedded in their brains, according to some (scientists, I suppose).

It remains a Red Herring and some phony blue smoke and mirrors based on a religious agenda that you consider textbooks seriously outdated. The science textbooks in fundamentalist schools are thousands of years outdated. Scientific knowledge is not personal opin.on. Your objections definitely are personal opinion unless you can present a sound scientific argument to support your assertions,

Your problem with National Geographic simple enforces your anti-science bias and lack of knowledge in science. You would need to present a scientific argument to refute it instead of a personal objection.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, so I have a question. Is mutation necessary for evolution?

Mutations are simply a matter of fact of the genes of life. The accumulation of mutations represent the genetic diversity in populations that is the basis for change from natural selection that results in evolution.

 

[ecco]

Peer review is not something limited to inbred so called science.

Your desperation is showing again.

 

[ecco]

nPeace said: ↑
God fixed the earth in place

I have to figure that happened. The forces are just too strong (either way, whether gravity in the universe keeping these humongous planets, suns, etc. in place) to just have happened. That's the way I figure.

Yep. It's beyond the ability of your bible indoctrinated mind to accept anything as complex as gravity. Just as it's beyond the ability of your bible indoctrinated mind to accept anything as complex as evolution.

The draw of Genesis is that it is simple. God did this and God did that and someone did this and someone did that. All on a level that a second-grader can comprehend.

 

[ecco]

So please, what is relatedness? and how is it tested? If you can present it in a way that I understand.

Relatedness.

In a way that you can understand?

OK!

Eve is related to Adam
Cain is related to Abel and Eve and Adam
Cain had sex with Eve to make the people who lived in the land of Nod.
Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife from among all the other women in Nod to whom he was also related.

Was that in a way that you could understand?

 

[YoursTrue]

I've already provided these links in this thread twice, now, but here you go:

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Extraordinarily rapid speciation in a marine fish
Speciation in real time
Observed Instances of Speciation
Instances of Observed Speciation on JSTOR

Let me ask you this: what is the difference between plants and animals, and how do scientists conjecture it happened, meaning if you don't get my point, did plants turn into animals through microevolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yep. It's beyond the ability of your bible indoctrinated mind to accept anything as complex as gravity. Just as it's beyond the ability of your bible indoctrinated mind to accept anything as complex as evolution.

The draw of Genesis is that it is simple. God did this and God did that and someone did this and someone did that. All on a level that a second-grader can comprehend.

We're not talking just of the physics of gravity, but of the explosion (as if anyone knows) of the articles leading to humongous round balls of differing matter. Back in Bible times, they didn't have telescopes, even so it is written, "The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor." 1 Corinthians 15:41. Yet the apostle Paul knew that all heavenly bodies were different, one from the other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me ask you this: what is the difference between plants and animals, and how do scientists conjecture it happened, meaning if you don't get my point, did plants turn into animals through microevolution?

Plants make their own food and are multicellular, animals have to consume food and are multicellular. Neither turned into the other. The answer is in the definition.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do realize that relatedness testing is not so simplistic as "their sequences are similar, therefore they're related", don't you? Have you ever actually taken the time to learn how relatedness testing is conducted?


Well that's kinda the thing about "maybe God just made it that way"....you can say that about anything, all the way up to Last Thursdayism. So it's not really much of a rebuttal to anything.

You can say it about anything except I would not accept the idea that God made a two-headed serpent, or that God made deformed lions and tigers or babies.

 

[YoursTrue]

WOW! Two Christian fundamentalists agreeing with each other that there is no evidence for evolution. WhodaThunkit?

This just proves that the only reason to disbelieve ToE is to blindly believe in Genesis.

This just proves that some people would rather believe a thousands year old creation story than believe the accumulated knowledge of mankind.




I do realize that reading and understanding Genesis is a lot easier than actually getting an education. Maybe that's part of the appeal.

I just wonder if somehow two-headed snakes mated with one another, with or without human intervention, do you think a new breed would evolve, of two-headed snakes?

 

[dad]

Your desperation is showing again.

I respect believing peers far more than the hell influenced rambling fantasies of so called science. Sorry that appears desperate in your head.

 

[YoursTrue]

It remains a Red Herring and some phony blue smoke and mirrors based on a religious agenda that you consider textbooks seriously outdated. The science textbooks in fundamentalist schools are thousands of years outdated. Scientific knowledge is not personal opin.on. Your objections definitely are personal opinion unless you can present a sound scientific argument to support your assertions,

Your problem with National Geographic simple enforces your anti-science bias and lack of knowledge in science. You would need to present a scientific argument to refute it instead of a personal objection.

There are definitely some things in various textbooks taught to students that are NOT accurate, thus leaving students with the wrong information.

It remains a Red Herring and some phony blue smoke and mirrors based on a religious agenda that you consider textbooks seriously outdated. The science textbooks in fundamentalist schools are thousands of years outdated. Scientific knowledge is not personal opin.on. Your objections definitely are personal opinion unless you can present a sound scientific argument to support your assertions,

Your problem with National Geographic simple enforces your anti-science bias and lack of knowledge in science. You would need to present a scientific argument to refute it instead of a personal objection.

Have you ever heard of Dr. Jerry Coyne? (Just wondering...)

 

[Jose Fly]

Seriously hilarious, but I am not laughing. After 72 pages, where I conversed with you for more 40... likely 50, this is the first time you are questioning me on my views. Absolutely hilarious!

Demonstrably incorrect. Some examples where I asked you questions about your views....

Evolution My ToE

Evolution My ToE

Evolution My ToE

Evolution My ToE

You even complained that my asking you questions about your views was preventing you from making your point: Evolution My ToE and Evolution My ToE

Be the genius. Form your hypothesis. Gather your evidence. Apply it all to you. Declare your theory a fact. Genius.
Not surprised. Only we both know what are the real issues here, you would like to cover up.

Empty assertion.

Just go back and check how many questions you asked me on my views, and how many times I found ways to shut that discussion down.

See above. The most prominent example comes from your post of Nov. 15 where you said you would conclude your presentation of your scenario, but it wasn't until 7 days later that you finally did so (in direct contrast to when we discussed evolution, which involved daily back and forths). Eventually you tried to shut the conversation down HERE and did it again yesterday, when you ignored the vast majority of THIS post and basically started making excuses to leave.

Truly... and I made a thread where I didn't expect to be questioned.

As you noted, this is a debate forum. Thus, you should expect to be questioned on the content of your posts.

Wow. I should be the genius here, but you are. All the facts are on your side.
Go eat drink and rejoice.

More dismissiveness.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's a possibility. I think it's more of a possibility than figuring it just 'happened' because...the time and physical, combustible connections were right so the genes moved along, forming something else kind of, sort of.

It's more than a "possibility". Relatedness testing is used in courts to establish things like paternity, and is considered to be almost foolproof (over 99% accuracy).

Can you explain in a simple manner how relatedness testing is conducted? And what is relatedness? I thought it was like the 98% or so of genes that are like humans in bonobos, as one example. So please, what is relatedness? and how is it tested? If you can present it in a way that I understand.

Relatedness simply means being related. It can apply at the individual level (you are closely related to your siblings), at the group level (I am related to people from Germany), or at the species level (humans are related to chimps).

In basic terms, the genetic tests are conducted by comparing genetic sequences and looking for shared mistakes in the same location in the genomes. So if we wanted to see if you were the father of a baby, we would compare sections of your genome to the baby's, and if they both showed the same pattern of mutations in the same locations, we would conclude that you are the father. Given the size of the genomes, it's far too improbable to conclude that the shared mistakes are mere coincidence.

You can say it about anything except I would not accept the idea that God made a two-headed serpent, or that God made deformed lions and tigers or babies.

You may not accept it, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. I've had other creationists tell me that they believe God controls everything, including mutations that lead to deformities and disease.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We're not talking just of the physics of gravity, but of the explosion (as if anyone knows) of the articles leading to humongous round balls of differing matter. Back in Bible times, they didn't have telescopes, even so it is written, "The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor." 1 Corinthians 15:41. Yet the apostle Paul knew that all heavenly bodies were different, one from the other.

You know that the sun and moon are visible from earth and look differently from each other, right?

So what’s so remarkable about Paul’s observation, that anybody who can look up can easily make?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I respect believing peers far more than the hell influenced rambling fantasies of so called science. Sorry that appears desperate in your head.

And yet you post here using the science that you deny. That is more than a bit hypocritical.

 

[shunyadragon]

There are definitely some things in various textbooks taught to students that are NOT accurate, thus leaving students with the wrong information.

Accuracy is different from whether the information is actually wrong, and no it is rare for the information in contemporary textbooks at the time they are published to be completely wrong.

The example you provided concerning the atomic weights of elements not being totally accurate is not something totally wrong information. The atomic weights as provided in charts is more than adequate for basic chemistry and organic chemistry until one is in the advanced studies in physics and chemistry.

I am not sure where this is going, because inaccuracies in textbooks and problems with peer review are indeed corrected over time, and the knowledge of science does indeed progress and improve. Textbooks are revised every few years.tp correct errors. This in reality has little or nothing concerning the science of evolution.

Have you ever heard of Dr. Jerry Coyne? (Just wondering...)

Yes.

 

[ecco]

We're not talking just of the physics of gravity, but of the explosion (as if anyone knows) of the articles leading to humongous round balls of differing matter.

I have no idea what "explosion of the articles" you are talking about.

Back in Bible times, they didn't have telescopes, even so it is written, "The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor." 1 Corinthians 15:41. Yet the apostle Paul knew that all heavenly bodies were different, one from the other.

Even to a blind man, the sun is very different from the moon. Do you think people back then got moon tans or moon burn?

In any case, stars are not different from the sun. You really should have known that since the third grade. And I guess God didn't tell Paul.

Did you not notice that there was no mention of planets. Could it be God didn't tell Paul they were different from stars?

Do you understand that many of the "stars" that you see and that the Bible writers saw are not stars, but are distant galaxies? I guess God didn't bother to tell them that either.


Everything that Paul writes about is "apparent" to the naked eye. Many of the things that Paul writes about are wrong. I guess you were trying to make a point but I have no idea what it could have been.



Thanks for verifying what I said earlier...
The draw of Genesis is that it is simple. God did this and God did that and someone did this and someone did that. All on a level that a second-grader can comprehend.