Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
pah said:I suppose you are then left with thousands of living things on the ark.
Look, My remark was made only to show the contradiction in your thinking.
You told KBC1963 to go to hell then you said that hell was here. That means you told KBC1963 to go where KBC1963 already was! That was all I was trying to say. Please, do get real.
This is simply not true, Linus. DNA can change, and it changes all the time. Otherwise, we would be exact clones of our parents, and I would not have hemophilia.Linus said:Back to the point. That being that evolution cannot take place. I have already stated the genetic impossibiblity of it. No matter what adaptions animals make, they cannot change the DNA in their gene pool without mating with another species. No matter how much time goes by, all that an animal can do is mate with other animals of its kind. Their offspring and theirs and theirs will always be that same animal.
What makes evolution improbable? Is it the same thing that makes a human-authored text that has been translated dozens of times from dozens of different languages 100% probable? Did you read my post in which I cited an observed instance of one species evolving into another distinct species?The shere probabilities involved in the theory of evolution render it an utterly and completely preposterous conclusion at which to arrive. I could be struck by lightning while dying in a plane crash and being bitten by a shark a million times in as many days before evolution could even begin, much less sustain itself throughout billions of years. No one, however, seems to want to address the issue; they just change the subject.
Muad'dib said:The contradiction in MY thinking? You're entire theology is one huge conglomeration of contradictions and inconsistences!
Muad'dib said:Please, do you understand the difference between "figure of speech" and "philosophical pondering"? "Go to hell" is an insult. "Life is Hell" is a metaphor for the suffering and burdens inherent in life.
Mr_Spinkles said:This is simply not true, Linus. DNA can change, and it changes all the time. Otherwise, we would be exact clones of our parents, and I would not have hemophilia..
Linus said:pah said:I suppose you are then left with thousands of living things on the ark.
Could you explain this a little more please?
I have already addressed this point in a previous post. DNA can and does change to the point of making a new species, and this has been observed and documented many times.Linus said:Let me clarify. I know that DNA can and does change, but it cannot change to the point of making a new species out of an old one. That was my point.
I encourage anyone who wants to know more about observed instances of species evolution to visit http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html The part I quoted is under "5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation".While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
Linus said:No matter what adaptions animals make, they cannot change the DNA in their gene pool without mating with another species.
A monkey cannot and never could evolve into a person. Do you want to know why?
Every species has a different genetic make-up than an other. In order for a new species to emerge completely new DNA must be incorporated into the existing gene pool.
The dating proceedures such as Carbon-14 dating, potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium are not only unreliable, but are based on assumtpions.
KBC said:age and dating technics are unproven and rely on supposition and in many cases use circular reasoning in their use. there are so many papers out there that prove the inaccuracy of current dating technics that it is easier for you to just look them up yourself.
fossil evidences that are used to indicate relatives to man are not found with tags on them saying who they are and where they came from so everything about a fossil is suppositional in nature. It is a well known fact that all living things occasionally have mutated babies and tho the mutation doesnt continue it is possible that after it dies it could later be dug up and incorrectly judged as an ancestor rather than a mutation, I ask you how many things ever found where judged a mutation? and yet we know all too well that this occurs, people are born with many oddities and skulls are equally able to be mutated.
If evolution were true then we should be able to easily and continuously find transitional species for everything
I would also like to point out that there are many things dug up that show almost no change at all, how is this reconciled with evolution? is evolution selective now?
I believe that the only "incredibly stupid" thing a person can do is blindly believe what other people say without ever looking themselves at the foundations that those people use to make thier claims.
My brother is a degreed Archaeologist and I have been able to see first hand how they use deductive reasoning "based on" something else
If all life evolved then why is there still death?
why hasnt every living thing overcome or evolved beyond death?
since our dna supposedly changes to overcome bad environmental influences then I would say death should have been the first thing to overcome, now keep in mind
that turtles,whales etc... can live far longer than humans and tree's can really make us look bad so I must ask the question; If we all are decendants of one original start of life why the differences in lifespans?
should I not be able to live as long as a tree seeing I am an evolved decendant from our common ancestor?
Quote: Select Expand
fossil evidences that are used to indicate relatives to man are not found with tags on them saying who they are and where they came from so everything about a fossil is suppositional in nature. It is a well known fact that all living things occasionally have mutated babies and tho the mutation doesnt continue it is possible that after it dies it could later be dug up and incorrectly judged as an ancestor rather than a mutation, I ask you how many things ever found where judged a mutation? and yet we know all too well that this occurs, people are born with many oddities and skulls are equally able to be mutated.
Let me get this straight. You believe that the skeletons which are acknowledged by scientists as human ancestors to really be dead animals which had a mutation which caused it to die?
and this means that the midget that was born at 1 million bc or whatever could have been a mutation that never continued and later was dug up and hey we have and ancestor that was only 4' tall."it is possible that after it dies it could later be dug up and incorrectly judged as an ancestor rather than a mutation"
Irrelevant. Life evolving would't be able to stop death. That has nothing to do with evolution. There is death because there reaches a point where the cells can not regenerate.
why hasnt every living thing overcome or evolved beyond death?
Living things have evolved to delay death, but you can not stop the fact that cells stop regenerating at a certain point, and that some cells rarely regenerate at all.
, I believe that it would be an easy arguement to win if I say that longevity is a factor in the evolutionary concept. So what makes cells stop regenerating? is that not a function of genetics? if it is then why would it not have evolved to longer life spans as it has been proven by existing trees that they can keep regenerating without a problem for a thousand plus years?That has nothing to do with evolution
since our dna supposedly changes to overcome bad environmental influences then I would say death should have been the first thing to overcome, now keep in mind
that turtles,whales etc... can live far longer than humans and tree's can really make us look bad so I must ask the question; If we all are decendants of one original start of life why the differences in lifespans?
Environment. Some environments damage cells more than others, usually by risk factor. Some animals act in such a way (or are physically designed) to die after performing certain acts (usually sexual). Also, different animals depend on different cells in their bodies. Those who depend on cells which regenerate easily live longer than animals who depend on cells that rarely, if ever, regenerate. It also depends on which survival method is better for that particular niche. For some animals, it is better to produce a large amount of children at once, not take care of them, and/or die sooner than having a few children at once, taking care of them, and/or living longer.
Do you have any challenging questions?
Kbc-- I seriously question how much objective investigation you have done into the subject of evolution, as you ask questions (i.e. about the lack of transitional species) which are readily answerable if you simply go to the library or surf the web, or take a biology class. Did you even look at the websites I provided?
Evolution [n]
1) a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage especially a more advanced or mature stage
KBC1963 said:and this means that the midget that was born at 1 million bc or whatever could have been a mutation that never continued and later was dug up and hey we have and ancestor that was only 4' tall.
the assumption by science that if we dig it up then it must be a natural line of man is not good
we have no way of knowing if what we dig up was a true average of the times or not
I mean just that, how can science dig up 1 or 2 things and make a conclusion?
if you and evolution insists that we all come from 1 parent
then we should all have the capabilities that were passed on by that parent to some of the other decendents I see in the world
and if as you say we all have the same genes just in different order
then how about you dive in there and say I want my genes resequenced so that I live as long as a tree or, do the resequencing of the part that deals with how long things regenerate in the genes coding before putting the egg and sperm together so that your children could live a thousand years?
Since you are saying that it is only a sequence and we all have the same possibility within our own genes then lets get busy and prove it.According to theory we could, but as far as I know, humans haven't yet learned to change one's DNA.
Living things have evolved to delay death, but you can not stop the fact that cells stop regenerating at a certain point, and that some cells rarely regenerate at all.
So now you say that Living things have evolved longer lifespans (or delay death as you put it) right after saying
Life has a goal to always want to prolong its species, usually by living longer so that they can produce more children. It isn't always successful, but that is the objective. Evolution works to help the animal fit better into its niche and survive better. In most cases, but not all, surviving better involves having more (or a higher survival rate and small numbers) of children. The fact that a lifespan is not solely based on genetics, and thus evolution, is what makes it irrelevant.
if it is then why would it not have evolved to longer life spans as it has been proven by existing trees that they can keep regenerating without a problem for a thousand plus years?
One's lifespan is not solely based on genetics. Also, genes don't go "hmmm lets have a copying error on the area of our DNA which controls blah blah blah." The mutation happens randomly, and nature selects whether or not it should have an impact on the species.
Environment. Some environments damage cells more than others, usually by risk factor. Some animals act in such a way (or are physically designed) to die after performing certain acts (usually sexual). Also, different animals depend on different cells in their bodies. Those who depend on cells which regenerate easily live longer than animals who depend on cells that rarely, if ever, regenerate. It also depends on which survival method is better for that particular niche. For some animals, it is better to produce a large amount of children at once, not take care of them, and/or die sooner than having a few children at once, taking care of them, and/or living longer.
Then the question "why can't we live that long" is viable to ask
Perhaps in your opinion. Personally I think it's a stupid question because we have 1)different niches, 2) different environments, 3) different obstacles/"enemies"/dangers/etc, 4)different types of cells, etc.
is it possible for the structure of dna to have formed without intelligent control?
I believe so. If time is infinite, then there were infinite possiblities, and infinite chances that it would happen. It was basically guaranteed to happen eventually.
My point was - if what you say is true, than all of what we can see today for "land" and "air" species must have been present on the ark.
And water. Depth, salinity, temperature, etc changes would kill most of the aquatic species that are alive today.
It could take thousands of years before we would be able to see how successful the O. gigas is in comparison to the species from which it evolved (O. lamarckiana), even if an experiment was set up growing O. gigas and O. lamarckiana together.So for me the evening primrose does not satisfy the meaning of evolution. The change that occurs indeed segregates the offspring and they can no longer breed with any other siblings of the original parents but in what way have they improved?
This is always a possibility, but highly unlikely because most of the fossils are not from only one skeleton. This would mean that they would have to be a group of people in the same area with the exact same mutation. Also, if this was a recent (for that time) mutation that wasn't an adaption, most of the population of that species wouldn't have that mutation. Why then would we not find any remains of the majority of that population in that area?
You clearly need to study abiogensis better. We all come from one source, yes, but it is not a plant with a 10,000 year lifespan. It was a prokaryotic cell.
No, because that one parent didn't "give off" lifespans. First of all, there are too many other things which affect one's lifespan besides the genetics, and also because each mutation has the potential to seriously decrease or increase one's lifespan.
You can't change how the cell regenerates without changing it's niche (of sorts). And you can't change your lifespan into being that of a tree because you are not structurely built as a tree.
According to theory we could, but as far as I know, humans haven't yet learned to change one's DNA
The fact that a lifespan is not solely based on genetics, and thus evolution, is what makes it irrelevant.
Then the question "why can't we live that long" is viable to ask
Perhaps in your opinion. Personally I think it's a stupid question
If time is infinite, then there were infinite possiblities, and infinite chances that it would happen. It was basically guaranteed to happen eventually.
there are many possible ways a mutation could give a new species an advantage. It's cells could have slightly different chemical makeup which make them less vulnerable to diseases that specialize in attacking its predecessor; or the mutated plant could be taller, giving it a slight advantage as smaller animals can't get at its leaves. Whatever advantage a DNA mutation gives, it is probably so slight that it would be difficult for us to observe this advantage unless we had a long time....also, the new species might not have an advantage now, but might have one in the future as the environment changes. Finally, one mutation alone might not help OR hurt a new species, but this single mutation could be a stepping stone to other mutations which do help a new species.
Either way, it is not fair to call O. gigas "devolution" because it is not a freak accident that quickly died out because of its fragility....it is a new species that is alive and well in botanical gardens all over, and survives fine in the same environment as O. lamarckiana does. Just ask yourself: how many different types of evening primrose do you think might have "devolved" from other types (like the O. gigas did)? How many insects?
Anyway: we agree that genes can mutate, causing a new and physically different species to form from an old species. Is it difficult to concede that the new species can have a (very tiny) advantage over the old species? Could a new "freakishly" tall, or "freakishly sturdy" species of plant have an advantage, you think? Could this advantage make a noticeable difference after a million years of competition?
We have already established that a new species can come from an old species due to genetic mutation. Now you only need to take the next logical step and realize that if a species is separated (geographically, for example) over time naturally occurring mutations/variety in the DNA can cause the seperated groups to become different species. These new species will no longer be able to interbreed with each other, just like O. gigas and O. lamarckiana. They may even look strikingly different (O. gigas and O. lamarckiana look very different, and that's only after ONE mutation.)
Ok, so to sum up: 1)genetic mutation/variation can cause new species to form, 2)mutations/variations can sometimes be beneficial
If you can accept these simple hypotheses, you agree with evolution in principle. (Actually, as long as you accept that all complex organisms have living parents, you accept evolution in principle.) I find it amusing that the website you quoted says that the example of the evening primrose can produce nothing other than "the odd freak". Interestingly, the natural world is filled with "odd freaks", from walkingsticks to kangaroos.
I mean, are people with sickled-cell anemia "odd freaks"? Perhaps....and yet, this unique genetic mutation makes the Africans who have it less vulnerable to malaria.
Linus said:Muad'dib said:Give me a break! Honestly, you must not be thinking. Think about how long life has existed on this planet. Three and a half to four billion years. You agree that micro evolution is possible. What do you think when you get three and a half to four billion years worth of micro evolution? We know full well that micro evolution itself can effect dramatic changes within a species. Billions of years worth of dramatic, micro evolutionary changes should equal macro evolution.
You can't prove that life has existed for billions of years. And even after four billion years of microevolution I would expect to get a few species that just looked a little different than when they started.
A monkey cannot and never could evolve into a person. Do you want to know why? Because that monkey's parents were still monkeys. And that monkey must mate with another monkey to make more monkeys. If there were a gene that caused monkeys to lose all their hair, they would still be a monkeys no matter how far and how wide that gene spread. They would still think and act like monkeys. The only thing that might change would be the smell.