mjordan2nd said:
Once again, I don't know. I'm not sure if biologists know this yet or not. We know the process by which codons are translated into amino acids, however I don't know the evolution of this process. We know that it happens. That is enough. You don't actually need to know how the process of converting codons into amino acids evolved for providing evidence for biological evolution (note, that the evolution of the process of coding amino acids from DNA and biological evolution are not the same thing).
I suppose it would be nice to know the evolution of the process in order to develop a comprehensive theory of spontaneous generation, but as far as biological evolution goes it is irrelevant.
|
You say, "We know that it happens. That is enough. You don't actually need to know how the process of converting codons into amino acids evolved for providing evidence for
biological evolution ..." So you
believe evolution happened... thats very similar to believing without seeing(the hard evidence that is)... Evolution is a theory.
A theory is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. So you are therefore relying on a lack of evidence to support your
faith of evolution. The evidence of design in nature is vastly abundant than any evidence of transitional creatures in the evolutionary chain. That is why in most evolutionary charts, there is a missing link that demonstrates the hopeful monster that has not yet been found.
also the evidence that is required to prove biological evolution is very relevent to prove evolution as fact.... you must have this to prove that life can start on it's own....
mjordan2nd said:
|
Quite right. You said that it most likely would not make a word.
|
therefore it would have no meaning and would be useless....
mjordan2nd said:
Predetermination does not require the intervention of God. For instance, the oscillation of a perfect pendulum can easily be modeled by the following equation:
From this you can derive equations for the pendulums position given you know the initial conditions of the pendulum. The motion of the pendulum is predetermined. It follows physical laws. The predetermination of the pendulum's position at any time has nothing to do with God.
The same thing that dictates a pendulums motion. Physical and chemical laws. How can a pendulum possibly understand that it wants to settle into equilibrium if its just a random collection of inorganic matter? If you answer that question, you will find it is the same as the answer to your question Though a pendulum is mathematically far simpler to model than a biological system, they both follow the same principles of our natural world.
|
again, the pendulum is nonliving and goverend by the laws of physics... basically gravity will tell you that the pendulum will stop in a certain position... a living organism has a mind and will to do as it pleases, if it wants to go right, forward, left or backward it will. So, for nonliving matter, you can treat it as the pendulum... it will not do anything on its own without external forces or defy the laws of physics... it would require an extrnal force...
mjordan2nd said:
|
If a tree gets struck by lightning and ignites, that does not mean that a tree means the production of fire. Even if every tree on a particular planet got struck by lightning and ignited, it does not mean that a tree "stands for" fire. It simply means that a tree will ignite when its hit by lightning -- a chemical process. Again, the chemical reactions in a biological system are more difficult to model, but they follow the same principles. Codons don't actually translate into amino acids any more than a tree translates into fire on that particular planet.
|
No, the tree being struck by lightining is not a chemical prosess... it is more along the lines of thermodynamics.... the burning is a chemical process...
the tree being struck causes the energy of the lightining to transfer to the tree and begin the burning process.... what you fail to understand is that in order for something to stand for something it cannot be combined(like DNA)...
mjordan2nd said:
|
Science is not responsible for answering questions of ethics. It only answers questions that pertain to fact.
|
so then why is the theroy of evolution considered as an answer? As I said above, a theroy has yet to be proven.... so why is evolution placed among facts?
mjordan2nd said:
|
I thought this was supposed to be a video on the theory of evolution? Colloquially, this has always implied biological evolution. Presenting facts on anything else is a misrepresentation of the term. The formation of the earth has nothing to do with biological evolution.
|
again, you must have one to have the other... if the big bang did not happen then life could not have happened on its own... basicly, if one does not exist the other does not either....
mjordan2nd said:
They could have called it orgasm X for all it matters, that doesn't mean the started started by an orgasm. It's simply a name.
Matter did not explode outwards and fill an empty universe. The universe was never empty.
|
so where did the matter come from? It could not have created itself? Also, if all the matter in the universe came together into one single spot as a dense ball of matter how did the matter get pulled into that one spot if the universe has no middle and no edge?
mjordan2nd said:
|
What the hell did you search? I searched Bombadier Beetle and the first three links google popped back at me rebuked your (*laughs*) "doctor," as did the first four links when I typed in "bombadier beetle evolution."
|
I searched bombadier beetle evolution and found the first three links...
>Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of DesignThe scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that. ...
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html - 39k - Cached - Similar pages
>CB310: Bombardier beetle evolutionThe bombardier beetle myth exploded. Creation/Evolution 2(1): 1-5. Angier, N., 1985. Drafting the bombardier beetle. Time (Feb. 25), 70. ...
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html - 9k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from
www.talkorigins.org ]
>Beetles And EvolutionThe inference which people have drawn from this appears to be that the bombardier beetle’s defence mechanism is a problem for evolution, and thus serves as ...
jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/852.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages
the last two are inconclusive about the beetle and the top one supports evolution, but thats just the top three....
mjordan2nd said:
|
Okay. You fucking say this over and over again like a retarded broken record. I say a retarded record because it's a record that keeps repeating something THAT ISN'T FUCKING TRUE. I've presented the evidence. You refuse to acknowledge it. Since you insist on doing this, I would like you to either rebuke these each point by point, not by simply saying "DURR DURR ITS NOT TRUE DURRR" but by backing it up with information, and evidence where necessary, or acknowledging that they are valid examples of evidence for evolution. Any point that you fail to rebuke, I will then take as you saying that it is not possible for you to rebuke them and we will therefore agree that they are valid examples.
|
The geologic column...
as you can tell from the first picture humans and dinosaurs seemed to be pretty close...
the second picture tells what human remains were found in the different rock layers...
Now tell me how this could be possible if humans and dinosaurs never existed together....
mjordan2nd said:
|
Remember. Respond to each of these excerpts individually, or I will take that as you acknowledging them as a valid example:
|
I am and will....
mjordan2nd said:
|
That is the evidence simply from the first four pages of this thread. Either give me a rebuttal on each point individually, or it will be taken as a concession that you admit it is valid evidence. Claiming that fossils are fake is not a valid rebuttal without some presentation of proof that fossils are fake. Claiming that transitional animals are not transitional by decree is not sufficient. You must provide evidence, or at least a valid explanation as to why they are not changing.
|
I never said fossils are fake... i just said that the fossils on record do not point to evolution, they are fossilized creatures that either still exist or that particular species is dead....
mjordan2nd said:
|
Is the pot also responsible for any blemishes on its paint?
|
The pot is nonliving, it cannot take responsibility...
mjordan2nd said:
|
So what you're saying is if a thug enters my house while my parents are homd and shoots me, it is my parents fault that I'm dead?
|
No, then its the thug's fault for your death.... if the parents knew it was going to happen or(it happened slow enough) they or even you could have stopped the thug....
mjordan2nd said:
|
I'm not blaming God for the deaths of the children, I'm blaming God for being a passive bystander while having the power to end the torture.
|
mjordan2nd said:
|
Note, that I'm referring to God as I would refer to any literary character. I am in no way acknowledging his existence.
|
mjordan2nd said:
|
That statement was not meant as a matter of fact, it was meant to convey my incredulity at God's apparent lack of logic.
|
So, you are saying that people should not be held accountable for their actions?
mjordan2nd said:
|
If Hitler believed in evolution, then yes, he was right. I'm sure he was right far more than twice.
|
So was he right when he killed the jews?
mjordan2nd said:
|
Most people want that technology just in case. We have many thousand nukes in our arsenal. I doubt we actually plan on using all of them at any time.
|
Yes, but without those nukes other countries would willingly attack us without fear of being blown off the map....
mjordan2nd said:
|
And you're an idiot. Oh, wait, sorry. I thought we were playing the "state the obvious" game.
|
mjordan2nd said:
|
Just because a black mouse mates with a black mouse doesn't mean that its offspring will also be black. It's offspring could be black, brown, or white. I'm moving to mice instead of dogs because mathematically this is far simpler to model, yet it effectively demonstrates the pertinent principles of genetics that I think you're failing to grasp.
|
Yes, aslong as those genes were passed down to those mice by their parents... but if the mice have no background of different colors then you could not hope the mice would have offspring with white fur... the gene has to be passed down inorder for the mice to have it...
mjordan2nd said:
|
Somatic mice cells are all dihaploid indicating that they have two alleles for each characteristic. In the case of mice coats, the black allele is completely dominant to the brown coat. This means a mouse will have a black coat whether it has two alleles for a black coat or one allele for a black coat and one for a brown coat. Two parent hybrids will be black, but if they have four offspring, one should be brown. But there's a twist. There's an additional gene which codes whether or not the mice get any pigment or not. The recessive allele does nothing, while the dominant allele gives them pigment. Again, the dominant allele is completely dominant to the recessive allele. Now what happens? If the parents were dihybrids and had sixteen children, they should have nine black children, three brown children, and four WHITE children, even if they've never had a white mouse anywhere along their ancestral tree, although this would be highly unlikely.
|
Yes, that would be extremly unlikely... where would the white color come from? Unless the child is albino the colors black or brown would still show up...
mjordan2nd said:
Similarly, just because two dogs look like toy poodles does not mean that their children will also be toy poodles, or be smaller than the parents. Size is not only dependent on genes, but on environment as well. Size is a quantitative trait, meaning it lies along a continuum rather than being
fixed by genes.
|
So a chuaua would grow in size if it had a large environment? I don't think so... size is a trait just like hair color... if you have a history of tall people in your family you chance of being tall is great, but if there are short people in your family then you could be tall, short or in between....
mjordan2nd said:
|
Of course, none of this is an example of an increase in information. Mutations, however, do account for increases in information. For instance, searching "gene duplication" at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi gives over 5000 examples of an increase in genetic information. If that doesn't suffice, I'm sure that searching point mutations or recombination would give similar results.
|
1: Ji J, Lu J, Ye W, Hu X, Wang D. Related Articles
[Study on the mitochondrial DNA variation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.]
Zhonghua Yi Xue Yi Chuan Xue Za Zhi. 2007 Apr;24(2):167-72. Chinese.
PMID: 17407074 [PubMed - in process]
2: Gasser RB, Hu M, Chilton NB, Campbell BE, Jex AJ, Otranto D, Cafarchia C, Beveridge I, Zhu X. Related Articles
Single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) for the analysis of genetic variation.
Nat Protoc. 2006;1(6):3121-8.
PMID: 17406575 [PubMed - in process]
I found these two by searching point mutations, these are the first two in the search...
both of these talk about mutations that are harmful... they do not say anything about benifits except for their research...
mjordan2nd said:
|
I'm not sure how to respond to that, because I have no idea what it means. You seem to be giving contradictory accounts of the same situation. Brush up on your terminology. Remember, you already admitted to agreeing that a new species can start from evolution in this thread probably because you didn't know meaning of the word "speciation."
|
I did not agree to new species occouring by evolution....
I said that the dogs would have to have the the height gene inorder to be taller than their parents... i also said that the varying gene that each dog could have would be the height gene making the dogs different heights....
mjordan2nd said:
That wasn't the point of my statement, I was correcting your terminology. It's really confusing when you misuse words in this type of discussion.
And of course our ancestors were humans. I never claimed they weren't. I simply claimed that at one point they were also microorganisms.
|
Right.....
any way... I want you to tell me one piece of FACT that supports evolution... and dont say fossils because there is more evidence for creation in those than for evolution as I stated 16 quotes up.... I want hard evidence for evolution....