Sorry, I meant no offense.
I find females, to be the best debaters...it’s actually a compliment, in my book.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution My ToE
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
I find females, to be the best debaters...it’s actually a compliment, in my book.
nPeace
Veteran Member
@Jose Fly
Evolution as a philosophy
Philosophy - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Philosophy is a way of thinking about the world, the universe, and society. It works by asking very basic questions about the nature of human thought, the nature of the universe, and the connections between them. The ideas in philosophy are often general and abstract.
Philosophy is the study of humans and the world by thinking and asking questions. It is a science and an art. Philosophy tries to answer important questions by coming up with answers about real things and asking "why?"
Sometimes, philosophy tries to answer the same questions as religion and science.
The theory of evolution tries to answer questions creating an "evolutionary history" of living things.
The theory of evolution starts with a preconceived idea, or presumption, regarding the diversity of life on earth.
The dogma - the idea of universal common ancestry - is considered a fact despite any verifiable evidence to support it. All the circumstantial evidence gathered is claimed as evidence in support of the theory.
It is built on one idea on top of another, rather than solid evidence. These ideas are believed to be true.
There are numerous examples, but I will just use one...
"UCA is a fact, therefore we should find transitional fossils to "connect the dots" - one or more organism connected to another... all the way back to one. We won't find all, of course but plenty." After more than a century of unsuccessful searching... suddenly. "Ah! There's one. Oh. Some more. Oh. They are coming plentiful now."
Let's look.
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus anamensis is the intermediate species between Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus afarensis and has multiple shared traits with humans and other apes.
Ardipithecus ramidus
Looks like it. No. This is a belief, or set of beliefs held by and taught as truth.
The beliefs go further than just biological evolution. Questioning dogma.
Is it one of Satan's designs?
What is a design of Satan?
It is designed to confuse, and lead people away from their creator, and his right standards. It promotes an independent way of thinking, and lifestyle... and materialism.
The idea of UCA and Darwin's idea of evolution is both a doctrine of men, and a design of Satan... in my view.
It is not the case that people necessarily set out to do Satan's will. It is simply a case of being misled because of their own desires. They choose to believe.
Evolution as a philosophy
Philosophy - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Philosophy is a way of thinking about the world, the universe, and society. It works by asking very basic questions about the nature of human thought, the nature of the universe, and the connections between them. The ideas in philosophy are often general and abstract.
Philosophy is the study of humans and the world by thinking and asking questions. It is a science and an art. Philosophy tries to answer important questions by coming up with answers about real things and asking "why?"
Sometimes, philosophy tries to answer the same questions as religion and science.
The theory of evolution tries to answer questions creating an "evolutionary history" of living things.
The theory of evolution starts with a preconceived idea, or presumption, regarding the diversity of life on earth.
The dogma - the idea of universal common ancestry - is considered a fact despite any verifiable evidence to support it. All the circumstantial evidence gathered is claimed as evidence in support of the theory.
It is built on one idea on top of another, rather than solid evidence. These ideas are believed to be true.
There are numerous examples, but I will just use one...
"UCA is a fact, therefore we should find transitional fossils to "connect the dots" - one or more organism connected to another... all the way back to one. We won't find all, of course but plenty." After more than a century of unsuccessful searching... suddenly. "Ah! There's one. Oh. Some more. Oh. They are coming plentiful now."
Let's look.
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus anamensis is the intermediate species between Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus afarensis and has multiple shared traits with humans and other apes.
Ardipithecus ramidus
Looks like it. No. This is a belief, or set of beliefs held by and taught as truth.
The beliefs go further than just biological evolution. Questioning dogma.
Is it one of Satan's designs?
What is a design of Satan?
It is designed to confuse, and lead people away from their creator, and his right standards. It promotes an independent way of thinking, and lifestyle... and materialism.
The idea of UCA and Darwin's idea of evolution is both a doctrine of men, and a design of Satan... in my view.
It is not the case that people necessarily set out to do Satan's will. It is simply a case of being misled because of their own desires. They choose to believe.
Last edited:
dad
Undefeated
Not the place to express your denial over the actual basis for scientific dating and other claims.
The contemporary academic knowledge is based on the objective verifiable evidence and many years of research to support this knowledge. In contrast you have produced no such evidence to confirm your assertions. The only thing you have provided is truly bizzaro claims of violations of basic Newtonian Physics and no evidence.
@Jose Fly
Evolution as a philosophy
Philosophy - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Philosophy is a way of thinking about the world, the universe, and society. It works by asking very basic questions about the nature of human thought, the nature of the universe, and the connections between them. The ideas in philosophy are often general and abstract.
Philosophy is the study of humans and the world by thinking and asking questions. It is a science and an art. Philosophy tries to answer important questions by coming up with answers about real things and asking "why?"
Sometimes, philosophy tries to answer the same questions as religion and science.
The theory of evolution tries to answer questions creating an "evolutionary history" of living things.
The theory of evolution starts with a preconceived idea, or presumption, regarding the diversity of life on earth.
The dogma - the idea of universal common ancestry - is considered a fact despite any verifiable evidence to support it. All the circumstantial evidence gathered is claimed as evidence in support of the theory.
It is built on one idea on top of another, rather than solid evidence. These ideas are believed to be true.
There are numerous examples, but I will just use one...
"UCA is a fact, therefore we should find transitional fossils to "connect the dots" - one or more organism connected to another... all the way back to one. We won't find all, of course but plenty." After more than a century of unsuccessful searching... suddenly. "Ah! There's one. Oh. Some more. Oh. They are coming plentiful now."
Let's look.
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus anamensis is the intermediate species between Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus afarensis and has multiple shared traits with humans and other apes.
Ardipithecus ramidus
Looks like it. No. This is a belief, or set of beliefs held by and taught as truth.
The beliefs go further than just biological evolution. Questioning dogma.
Is it one of Satan's designs?
What is a design of Satan?
It is designed to confuse, and lead people away from their creator, and his right standards. It promotes an independent way of thinking, and lifestyle... and materialism.
The idea of UCA / Darwin's idea of evolution is both a doctrine of men, and a design of Satan... in my view.
It is not the case that people necessarily set out to do Satan's will. It is simply a case of being misled because of their own desires. They choose to believe.
Actually, the contemporary science of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin's idea except he proposed the first hypothesis based on objective evidence that began the advancement of the science of evolution.
By asserting the science of evolution is a philosophy you are neglecting the facts that the science is supported by a vast growing body of knowledge supporting the science. In contrast you have presented absolutely nothing in terms of evidence that supports an alternative hypothesis that is falsifiable,
Your ancient mythological religious agenda is thousands of years out of date.
Still waiting forevidence that supports an alternative hypothesis that is falsifiable,
nPeace
Veteran Member
UCA doesn't belong to Darwin.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What is UCA? Nothing that I know today belongs to Darwin.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Universal Common Ancestry (UCA).
Universal Common ancestry is result of objective verifiable evidence and many years of scientific research. and yes like all contemporary science of abiogenesis and evolution does not belong to Charles Darwin, nor any other scientist in history..
What we are still lacking here is a working hypothesis, and objective verifiable evidence that support any alternative you could believe in. .
Still waiting. . .
nPeace
Veteran Member
The so-called objective verifiable evidence apparently is nothing more than circumstantial evidence assumed, or rather presumed to be evidence supporting UCA.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Universal Common Ancestor.
And creationists tend to have an "all or nothing" attitude. They seem to think that if Darwin was wrong about one thing he was wrong about everything.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And you are singing that old song again, meanwhile you cannot support it, nor do you even seem to understand what is and what is not evidence.
dad
Undefeated
Keep denying all you like.
dad
Undefeated
Vague claptrap.
There is nothing at all researched or known about what nature existed on earth in the past. That is belief. No knowledge whatsoever.
My assertion is that science does not know what nature existed on earth in Noah's day. The confirmation comes in your fail (and others over a period of several years)
If you claim physics as Newton knew it existed in Noah's day you would need to do more than parrot the words. Your case has come undone.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Sorry tomorrow took so long.
So basically genes perform special functions.
The design of the cell is such that there are mechanisms in place to protect against cell death, or death to the organism. So replication is fairly accurate, with some errors resulting in mutations, but many of these make no changes.
Some mutations are repaired, though not perfectly.
You were asking about mutation rates.
Article - under Sub-heading : Errors in replication are a source of point mutations
As stated above, the error rate for DNA synthesis in E. coli is 1 in 107. The overall error rate for replication of the E. coli genome is only 1 in 1010 to 1 in 1011, the improvement compared with the polymerase error rate being the result of the mismatch repair system (Section 14.2.3) that scans newly replicated DNA for positions where the bases are unpaired and hence corrects the few mistakes that the replication enzymes make. The implication is that only one uncorrected replication error occurs every 1000 times that the E. coli genome is copied.
I have a few questions.
1. How are mutations identified?
I understand that It is often impossible to tell exactly when a de novo mutation happened.
I also understand that the same mutation can act differently in different organisms.
An Overview of Mutation Detection Methods in Genetic Disorders
The range of signs and symptoms of some diseases in different people vary widely (variable expressivity), e.g. some people with Marfan syndrome (due to mutation in FBN1) have only mild symptoms (such as being tall and thin with long, slender fingers), while others have life-threatening complications involving the heart and blood vessels as well. Furthermore, some individuals exhibit signs and symptoms of a given disorder while others do not, even though they have the disease-causing mutation (i.e. a proportion of people with a particular mutation show the condition in this type of disorders)
The range of signs and symptoms of some diseases in different people vary widely (variable expressivity), e.g. some people with Marfan syndrome (due to mutation in FBN1) have only mild symptoms (such as being tall and thin with long, slender fingers), while others have life-threatening complications involving the heart and blood vessels as well. Furthermore, some individuals exhibit signs and symptoms of a given disorder while others do not, even though they have the disease-causing mutation (i.e. a proportion of people with a particular mutation show the condition in this type of disorders)
I understand also that a mutation, it is suggested, may be directed to particular genes.
Article - Sub-heading : Hypermutation and the possibility of programmed mutations
Is it possible for cells to utilize mutations in a positive fashion, either by increasing the rate at which mutations appear in their genomes, or by directing mutations towards specific genes? Both types of event might appear, at first glance, to go against the accepted wisdom that mutations occur randomly but, as we shall see, hypermutation and programmed mutations are possible without contravening this dogma.....
However, problems have arisen with reports, dating back to 1988 (Cairns et al., 1988), which suggested that E. coli is able to direct mutations towards genes whose mutation would be advantageous under the environmental conditions that the bacterium is encountering.....
Programmed mutations? In 1988 startling results were published suggesting that under some circumstances Escherichia coli bacteria are able to mutate in a directed way that enables cells to adapt to an environmental stress. The randomness of mutations (more...)
These experiments suggested that bacteria can program mutations according to the selective pressures that they are placed under. In other words, the environment can directly affect the phenotype of the organism, as suggested by Lamarck, rather than operating through the random processes postulated by Darwin. With such radical implications, it is not surprising that the experiments have been debated at length, with numerous attempts to discover flaws in their design or alternative explanations for the results. Variations of the original experimental system have suggested that the results are authentic, and similar events in other bacteria have been described. Models based on gene amplification rather than selective mutation are being tested (Andersson et al., 1998), and attention has also been directed at the possible roles of recombination events such as transposition of insertion elements in the generation of programmed mutations (Foster, 1999).
Is it possible for cells to utilize mutations in a positive fashion, either by increasing the rate at which mutations appear in their genomes, or by directing mutations towards specific genes? Both types of event might appear, at first glance, to go against the accepted wisdom that mutations occur randomly but, as we shall see, hypermutation and programmed mutations are possible without contravening this dogma.....
However, problems have arisen with reports, dating back to 1988 (Cairns et al., 1988), which suggested that E. coli is able to direct mutations towards genes whose mutation would be advantageous under the environmental conditions that the bacterium is encountering.....
Programmed mutations? In 1988 startling results were published suggesting that under some circumstances Escherichia coli bacteria are able to mutate in a directed way that enables cells to adapt to an environmental stress. The randomness of mutations (more...)
These experiments suggested that bacteria can program mutations according to the selective pressures that they are placed under. In other words, the environment can directly affect the phenotype of the organism, as suggested by Lamarck, rather than operating through the random processes postulated by Darwin. With such radical implications, it is not surprising that the experiments have been debated at length, with numerous attempts to discover flaws in their design or alternative explanations for the results. Variations of the original experimental system have suggested that the results are authentic, and similar events in other bacteria have been described. Models based on gene amplification rather than selective mutation are being tested (Andersson et al., 1998), and attention has also been directed at the possible roles of recombination events such as transposition of insertion elements in the generation of programmed mutations (Foster, 1999).
Questions you asked...
So to be clear, you believe that a pathogen's ability to resist an antibiotic, or an insect's ability to resist an insecticide was intentionally designed into their genomes?
I believe the cell was purposefully designed with the mechanisms for repairing, resisting, and removing or eliminating foreign invaders or problems to the genome. If that's what you are asking, it's a yes.
Do you believe there is a "who" behind all mutations?
There is no who, behind any mutation. They occur randomly, even if the process was started in the past, by a who. In other words, if the designer tweaked the genome to include mutations, then it was a one time occurrence.
What exactly is your understanding of mutation rates? How often do you think they occur?
I don't think about it. It is not important to me. However, see above.
Why is that important in this discussion?
I'm not sure what the issue here is. Do you disagree with the estimates of mutation rates that geneticists have generated? If so, on what basis?
I don't understand what prompted the question. Can you please explain.
I think I had other things to say, but it's been a while. They may come to mind as we go forward.
nPeace
Veteran Member
You are happy with your belief. I am happy with mine.
I don't need to provide anything for you to compare your belief, and claim yours is better.
All I have to do is show, or point out that your beliefs have no claim in science.
That's all.
It doesn't matter to me if you parade them as science. That does not change the fact that they are unverifiable beliefs - no better than any other.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I'll answer one of your objections here now.
There are words (which even scientists acknowledge) that are expressed and the exact understanding is not really being able to be expressed. For instance, many realize 'natural selection' is not really accurate to describe the process of evolution. And many describe an automobile in the feminine sense, other languages do the same with various nouns that really have no gender. The Bible was written in a way for men (people) to understand.
The word in the masculine sense is used for God in the Bible. But it is clear to many, including myself, that God has no physical gender as we understand male or female. But the pronoun for God is related as masculine.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why do you think that we should find transitional fossils? You clearly do not know how rare fossilization is. In the "wrong" environment no fossil evidence at all is left behind. For example the fossil evidence for chimps is extremely poor because they never left the tropical forests. Bones tend to rot away before they can get buried and preserved there. And of course fossil evidence is just one small part of the evidence that tells us that we share a common ancestor with chimps and bonobos. The DNA evidence is as good as Muary Povich saying "You ARE the father!!"