Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

[hay_you]

by James R most recently IIRC

What does this mean, or who is this?

 

[Dywyddyr]

IIRC - If I Recall Correctly.
And James R is a site admin. He posted here, here and here.
Including your warning for trolling.

 

[hay_you]

IIRC - If I Recall Correctly.
And James R is a site admin. He posted here, here and here.
Including your warning for trolling

Oh OK , it looked like some code.

 

[hay_you]

I hope I answered his questions OK.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I hope I answered his questions OK.

More of your ridiculous avoidance: one of his lengthy posts you ignored altogether and on another you replied to ONE point with yet another totally erroneous claim.
And so far you've done a superb job job of ignoring the trolling warning.

 

[spidergoat]

There have been studies on fruit flies, as scientists were trying to speed up 'evolution' by radiating them with X-rays clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity. Another result was that the mutations never produced anything new. The fruit flies had malformed wings, legs and bodies, and other distortions, but they always remained fruit flies. And when mutated flies were mated with each other, it was found that after a number of generations, some normal fruit flies began to hatch. If left in their natural state, these normal flies would eventually have been the survivors over the weaker mutants, preserving the fruit fly in the form in which it had originally existed.
This really show s that DNA tries to keep everything in order. It allows for variety, but does not let you become something else. So evolution is not possible with DNA. Only mutations.

It means that the selection pressure of irradiation produced random results, and that fully functioning fruit flies attained a clear survival advantage, thus in effect, purifying the gene pool of horrible mutants. But, if the selection "pressures" favored some mutation, the fruit flies might branch off and become a new species. This has been observed in the lab. If the definition of species is a gene pool in isolation from another, then that has been achieved artificially.

 

[hay_you]

It means that the selection pressure of irradiation produced random results, and that fully functioning fruit flies attained a clear survival advantage, thus in effect, purifying the gene pool of horrible mutants. But, if the selection "pressures" favored some mutation, the fruit flies might branch off and become a new species. This has been observed in the lab. If the definition of species is a gene pool in isolation from another, then that has been achieved artificially.

But the question here is this 'if' . Also in a lab the scientists were interested in seeing what would happen down the road with the mutant fruit flies. So they were looked after so that they would reproduce. And it still came back generations later as a normal fruit fly. These experiments have been going on for quite some time and this was the result. Also the scientist would have liked the result of mutants change the fruit flies into something else other than a fruit fly. But that was not the result.
This was the same as the finches experiment. Their bills did change for a time, but just slightly, then came back to normal. They were still finches.
It is clear from the research that, evolution as scientists say is not possible.

 

[Dywyddyr]

But the question here is this 'if' . Also in a lab the scientists were interested in seeing what would happen down the road with the mutant fruit flies. So they were looked after so that they would reproduce. And it still came back generations later as a normal fruit fly.

But, if the selection "pressures" favored some mutation, the fruit flies might branch off and become a new species.

You ignored that bit.
Selection pressures didn't favour anything but fruit flies.
Incorrect conclusion on your part.

It is clear from the research that, evolution as scientists say is not possible.

So you ignored

This has been observed in the lab. If the definition of species is a gene pool in isolation from another, then that has been achieved artificially.

More trolling.

Evolution is not only "possible" it is a fact.

 

[hay_you]

Originally Posted by spidergoat
But, if the selection "pressures" favored some mutation, the fruit flies might branch off and become a new species.

I did answer that. The 'if', is what scientists do, they accept the 'if' as it did happen. But can not prove that it did. There is no line to show how it mutated more and eventually became something else. All the evidence, in the real world and in the lab, shows that DNA keeps a fruit fly a fruit fly. Even though you can make it mutate, it will come back to what is normal . Now science is probably very close to be able to directly change the DNA, but that is intelligence doing that, and it doesn't show that it could happen or did happen without intelligent interference.
The evidence is against evolution, even in the lab experiments.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I did answer that. The 'if', is what scientists do, they accept the 'if' as it did happen. But can not prove that it did. There is no line to show how it mutated more and eventually became something else. All the evidence, in the real world and in the lab, shows that DNA keeps a fruit fly a fruit fly. Even though you can make it mutate, it will come back to what is normal .

No you failed completely to understand.

and it doesn't show that it could happen or did happen without intelligent interference.

Wrong.

The evidence is against evolution, even in the lab experiments.

Utterly wrong.

 

[hay_you]

Evolution is not only "possible" it is a fact.

Now that is trolling.

 

[James R]

hay you:

Please respond to post #348.

Thanks.

 

[Gustav]

lemme bring hay_you upto speed for you, james

You're either uneducated or in denial. Which is it?

well, hay_you?
which is it?
could it be both?

 

[hay_you]

Exactly. So, you are not the same as your parents. They are not the same as their parents. etc. etc. Work it back far enough and you'll find your direct ape ancestor.

But that is not correct, there is no direct line back. Scientists have been trying to get a missing link for years but the ones they have come up with have fallen by the way side.

But natural selection culls out the changes that don't work. Every animal in an evolutionary chain had to "work" well enough to reproduce and pass on its genes to the next generation. Nature dispensed with the animals that didn't work and kept the ones that did - which is the whole point of evolution.

You have to think that a change that did work and then was passed on , but the next change didn't work. All the changes would be lost, that happened before hand. So these changes up until then would be in the record, and then lost. Also the whole point of evolution is a mistake happens, then another and then another, then something is used, this leaves a trail of mistakes . The only way any of this can be passed on is for these mistakes to reproduce . So it is not as there would be no record, there should be millions these compared to something with four legs under it.

That's wrong. For example, whales don't have complete legs. But they do have all the same bones inside their bodies that you have in your leg.

Why did your Creator design whales to have useless bones inside their bodies?

To scientists at this point may not have answer for this, but as science learns new things these often come to light. Scientist can not say they know everything about all of this. More with the next question on the eyes.

Regarding eyes - a favorite topic of creationists - half an eye is better than no eye at all, and there are many examples of animals that have eyes less developed than our own. And human eyes are not the best eyes in the animal kingdom either, so in that sense our eyes aren't "complete".

Eyes were design for their intended use. Low light conditions, just vague shapes, ealges eyes and eyes that are good at night like owls.
Something else about eyes
I found this here
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/invertedretina192.htm

Generations of Darwinists have seized on this apparently illogical arrangement and particularly the consequent “blind spot” as a case of maladaptation. The following comments by Dawkins are typical:1

Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate eyes. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wires sticking out on the side nearest to the light. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer!)

Vision is such an important adaptation in higher vertebrates that if the retina is indeed “wired wrongly” or “badly designed” it would certainly pose, as Dawkins implies, a considerable challenge to any teleological interpretation of nature.

However, consideration of the very high energy demands of the photoreceptor cells in the vertebrate retina suggests that rather than being a challenge to teleology the curious inverted design of the vertebrate retina may in fact represent a unique solution to the problem of providing the highly active photoreceptor cells of higher vertebrates with copious quantities of oxygen and nutrients.

This shows there is a lot to learn from the natural world and scientists have just really scratched the surface. What they know today is different than tomorrow .

There were transitional steps. For example, ancestral species of whales had legs. We know because there are fossils of those animals. Do you think those legs were "errors"? There were not. They were perfectly useful and functional in the whale ancestor species.

If they were perfectly usefull how did evolution know how to do that?. Where are the trial and errors that evolution would take to get there? To be perfectly useful, shows creation. Planning went into it.

Wrong. Most mutations are neutral. But even if most were bad it wouldn't matter, because nature keeps the good and throws away the bad.

Then there should be a record of that. But the record show just the good.

Wrong. As I explained to you before, fossilisation is an exceedingly rare thing. You'd need thousands of humans with extra arms to have a tiny chance of seeing one extra-armed fossilised human.

But we have billions of people and a few with an extra arms. The fossil record should show the majority of examples. In the past the majority would be the mistakes. Unless it is creation and then you would get good examples.

DNA doesn't "try" to do anything.

DNA are the instructions, they do try to keep animal in the normal range . It resists mutation and deviation.

They didn't go directly there. The position of fins on whales, and their size and so on evolved over many generations, gradually. By the way, do you know why whales' tails move up and down rather than side to side? Please give me your creationist explanation for that, because evolution has an explanation.

You say that but , did you notice that they go directly to where they are useful, how did evolution know that, why does they not travel all over the body then settle in a useful good spot. Now a creator would know that.

On the whole, yes, because most animals function well. If they did not function from birth they would quickly have died and probably not been fossilised.

Yes they would have died, there would be a large number of these. But if their parents were mutated ones and gave birth they should be in the record. And the death of the offspring could stop all the mutations so far . The end of the line.

On the other hand, we do find fossils of animals with broken bones or deformities, just like if you were to go to a cemetery and start digging you'd find some humans with deformities.

of course there are some of these.

There's abundant evidence. Go out, buy yourself a copy of Richard Dawkin's latest book The Greatest Show on Earth and educate yourself.

I have read some of his books.

You appear to have a silly, linear picture of life. Species are more like the branches on a tree. No modern animal evolved from any other modern animal. Humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Both humans and chimps share a common ancestor. We're on two adjacent branches of the evolutionary tree, not on a ladder with humans at the top and chimps below.

I understand that , but scientists say that some simple life form started so if you go all the way back we come from that, also plants. WE are not related to chimps.

You're either uneducated or in denial. Which is it?

If all you hear in school, and from your teachers that evolution is a fact. And scientists are supposed to know. And then in university the same, and then to get a job . What are you going to believe. You have been groomed to think a certain way.

 

[GeoffP]

Now that is trolling.

It isn't. There any number of papers illustrating changes in allele frequencies. That's evolution.

 

[hay_you]

It isn't. There any number of papers illustrating changes in allele frequencies. That's evolution.

As already discussed with fruit flies that heredity plays an important part , mutations can be caused in the DNA , but they always remain fruit flies and even the mutated ones when mated with other mutated ones will after a few generations, come back as normal fruit flies.
The DNA does try to keep their host from becoming something else, and even restoring damaged flies in their offspring to return to normal flies.
It is not the science that is in question in most cases, scientists are really good at the science. It is just the interpretation of the science that is not correct.

 

[Dredd]

Evolution never stops since mutations never stop. Yet when conditions (usually environmental) change dramatically mutations try to catch up, or adapt more rapidly. If mutations can not fit the requirements for adaptation, species go extinct.

In human case, our special manipulations (the way we eat, we socialise; we apply science and technology into our lives, etc.) to our bodies and minds give extra effects for our mutation alongside natural cycles and transformation.

We would not turn into super beings or robots due to natural mutations or evolutions. But we can turn into something we design in the future, depending on our level of knowledge on DNA manipulation.

I see biological evolution as a minor player, memetic evolution as the major player, in terms of avoiding the extinction of the human species.

 

[Gustav]

heh
we go to the moon and beyond not because we are doomed but because we can

 

[hay_you]

I see biological evolution as a minor player, memetic evolution as the major player, in terms of avoiding the extinction of the human species.

This is assuming that you think man can bring about this kind of change. The truth is man can not direct his own step. In other words he can't govern himself. This has been proved time and time again, throughout history. We were not given the ability to do that.

 

[Pipes75]

And you seem to be equally quick on assuming what knowledge I have.

My assumptions of you are only based on what you post.

There's no evidence of it.

Evidence of the spiritual, lol - you keep asking for something that will never be given! I could tell you the secret to afterlife and/or the spiritual side is in the photon cells and/or the light, but you wouldn't believe me anyway and it's not something I can prove.

With regard to your nonsense about opposites creating life this has not been shown to be a requirement.
If you have any actual evidence please do present it.

here's a link:
http://hubpages.com/hub/My-Fifth-Hub-The-Beginning-of-Life

The link makes strong connections to energy and Life. In fact it says life began as energy, and since energy is not subjected to time (always has been, never created or destroyed) the beginning of life is also not subjected to time. Positives and negatives are the two sides that are studied.

Stars were not, at any stage, alive. So that's that disposed of.
"Potential life" is not life.

Says who, you?
Stars are most certainly alive! How else could a star die.
Furthermore, the symbol for birth is a star like asterisks - thats a math symbol too. .
Why wouldn't potential life be a form of life - potential energy is a form of energy and the 2 are very closely related. Just because it is unknown doesn't make it untrue. It seems pretty obvious to me that the same rules apply to life as the rules that apply to energy - afterall, life and energy are part of the same beginning.

Life is not destroyed?
Evidence?
Or more supposition?

Converted but not destroyed. Our dust has potential Life. Again, much like energy, Life is only converted, it is not destroyed or created. Birth converts potential life into new life. Death converts life into potential life.

On what evidence?
Where is it "stored" until the materials conglomerate sufficiently to "require" it?
Does it just "hang around" until the materials are there, wait for them to form up into an acceptable configuration and then just climb in?

Just like the beginning of life on earth, perfect conditions are still required to convert the dust. And this is all still relatively new ideas when it comes to testing, although the ideas themself are ancient.
But the dust still holds potential life no matter how long it sits.
Evidence - well the best I can do is reccomend 2 books. The books provide more details then I know off hand:
'The Secret Life of Dust: From the cosmos to the kitchen counter, the big consequences of little things' and 'Dust: A history of the small and invisible'.
Both books show dust to have potential life.