Mutation is not the only mechanism that changes genes, there is also the influx of genetic material from other organisms.786 said:
Entropy contradict Evolution
- Thread starter Hadeka
- Start date
I've agreed with that many times already in this thread. Mutation occurs by chance. Nobody is arguing against that. Accept it, and move on. We have mutation, then natural selection operates, and the end result is... [fill in the blank].
Come on, 786, what did you learn in your college biology course?
You still haven't read your homework. Until you understand one gene one peptide it will never make sense to you. Did you even read my last, lengthy, post?786 said:
You should know, feathers are just modified scales. It is not a "big" change.
You owe it to the forum to answer this question. Did you, first, refuse to accept evolution? and then search out evidence to support your claim?
feathers, scales, teeth, hairs, mammary glands, nails, it is actually all the same.
b0urgeoisie said:
Feather's are actually a "big" change. The feathers are aerodynamic, and very well-structured. Could you please explain to me how scales gradually turned into feathers?
Now your questions.
I first believed in Evolution, when I first learned about it, but as we got deeper into the issue, I came to realize that too much of the Theory is depended on "Chance". Then after I realized this, then I searched out evidence to support my claim.
786 said:
You are still only looking at half of the picture. Nobody would claim that 1 in a trillion trillion odds make sense - UNTIL you also realize that the opportunities to achieve such odds are a Billion Trillion Trillion, etc.
Then an intelligent conclusion becomes that it is inevitable, not impossible.
Because the overall odds become a Billion to 1 in favor of evolution.
(The above numbers are only illustrative and not actual numbers but represent the process quite well).
I wouldn't have to explain this to you if you would read the postulates like you were instructed. I can't magically transfer knowledge into your head. If you read what I told you, (if your biology class was worth anything you would have learned it there) you could answer your own question.786 said:
One gene = one peptide. One gene = 3 identifier nucleotides. One nucleotide out of order = out of order tRNA. One tRNA out = wrong peptide bonds. Change in polypeptide bond = change in protein shape. Change in protein shape = everything.
I think I am understanding your concern. The beneficial mutations are rare. But you didn't ask enough questions.
I asked a diamond salesman how he thought it was ethical to sale at 1000% profit. He tried to impress me about just how much ground has to be moved to find any diamond. Then, when you find one, they are usually crap. So the odds of finding them do not sound good. But, I also know that there are a lot of diamonds out there. So I asked one more question. "How much dirt can you move in a day?" And, the argument was won. The amount of dirt they could move offset the low probability.
When your professor explained the low probability of beneficial mutation, you needed to ask questions that would tell you about the impact. First you should have said "OK they are rare. But, does that conflict with the Theory of Evolution?" The answer is no.
It is like a row of slot machines. If you could play a whole row of million dollar slots (for free) all day long for a hundred years, how many times would you win? Mutation is only one of those machines. When it is not winning, others are. But even the mutation machine will pay off once in a while.
If you are serious about science, you have to learn to ask more questions. You should ask questions even if some of the answers might conflict with what you believe. If you are not serious and are just trying to prove how smart you are, then it's time to cut it out before it back-backfires and it just makes you look like a smart-ass.
Scientists argue all the time. I have friends that are brilliant, accomplished scientists. And, they argue all the time. But, because they are scientists, they have to respect that they could be wrong. So they ask questions. Then, you find what new questions to ask, based on what you learn from your old questions.
You should hesitate to decide anything. You must continue to ask questions until there are no more questions worth asking. I don't think you are dumb because you are young. I think you are smart. But, because you are young, you lack experience. When you learn what questions to ask you could mature into a good scientist. But, if you are not careful, you could be one of those guys that is so impressed by how smart you are, that you don't remember to ask. Those guys are not fit for science.
Thank you. You are too kind.MacM said:
b0urgeoisie,
Do you have concrete evidence of this?
Jan Ardena.
Do you have concrete evidence of this?
Jan Ardena.
Jan Ardena said:
Do you have concrete evidence of this?
As if you really care.
The evolution of feathers
Bet you don't read it all.
Dee Cee
As if you really care.
The evolution of feathers
Bet you don't read it all.
Dee Cee
Jan while you were gone, we had a break-through. 786 is a smart kid. If he wants to remain progressive, he will continue to educate himself. Soon, he will see that he has made a common mistake. Your best approach is to ask him what he has learned. Then, you two can sort out the mountain of knowledge we have laid down here.Jan Ardena said:
The saving grace that 786 is afforded is - he was wrong but in an intelligent way. So, there is no shame in being wrong. Even if he is not convinced, you two should abandon this argument until you have both done some reading. Stay away from those propaganda sites. They will only confuse you.
Hey, sorry for not posting. I've had to do some shopping for school. Anyways, I'll try to continue the debate, but I'm afraid I'll have to leave when school starts. Cuz I've taken some hard classes, at least I think.
Anyways. So MacM showed me the Mutation part, even though I'm still not convinced, but I get the idea, so I'll drop that case. I might talk about Mutation more, after reading books rather than sites. And gain more knowledge about the concept of Mutations. But I really don't have much to say about this topic. I think we should move on now. But if anyone has anything to say about this, then I think they should talk about it. Because it could be that I left some important parts when talking about Mutation.
I'd still like everyone to read about the expiriments done on fruit flies. The result are extremely clear to me.
So lets move on then. If that is fine with everyone.
The topic I had already mentioned was the "eye".
First of all before going too ahead on this topic. I want to know what Evolutionists believe on the topic of "how eye's developed"?.
Anyways. So MacM showed me the Mutation part, even though I'm still not convinced, but I get the idea, so I'll drop that case. I might talk about Mutation more, after reading books rather than sites. And gain more knowledge about the concept of Mutations. But I really don't have much to say about this topic. I think we should move on now. But if anyone has anything to say about this, then I think they should talk about it. Because it could be that I left some important parts when talking about Mutation.
I'd still like everyone to read about the expiriments done on fruit flies. The result are extremely clear to me.
So lets move on then. If that is fine with everyone.
The topic I had already mentioned was the "eye".
First of all before going too ahead on this topic. I want to know what Evolutionists believe on the topic of "how eye's developed"?.
786 said:
Well, I'll have to say that your willingness to step back and rethink your position is encouraging. Like I said looking at the complexiety does give cause to consider intelligent design; however, looking at the much larger number of possibilites that have been generated via mutations eliminates that concern.
b0urgeoisie,
Where did i go?
Of course he's smart, just see how he's got your backs up.
Please demonstrate what qualifies you to make this statement about progressiveness!
Hmmmm! Mountain of knowledge heh? You mean like the mountain of knowledge you laid down with regards to the evolution of the eye?
It is a good thing to have a high opinion of oneself, but it is only of value if the opinion is actually warrented. Let that be your lesson for today.
There is nothing wrong with asking questions and expecting answers to them, which is all he has done, but has yet to get any serious answers.
That is a silly assumption to make.
If the eye evolved and you know it did, then show it, don't blame someone for not reading. Remember, not everyone can read. Or don't they count?
Statements like this does nothing for your self-opinion.
I suppose you mean "creationists" sites.
The thing is, they don't have any reason to promote propaganda (some anyway). There is no reason to support Darwins ideas, because it has no effect upon the human psyche. The human still has to believe in something that is real to him, in his wholeness, and evolution may just as well not exist whether he sees it as fact or not.
Darwins theory of evolution serves a different purpose, and that is to act as an opposition to God. The evolutionist always says, there is no better theory, and they are right, there is no better theory/idea that can trick people into thinking that God does not exist.
God=1, evolution=0.
Jan Ardena.
Where did i go?
Of course he's smart, just see how he's got your backs up.
Please demonstrate what qualifies you to make this statement about progressiveness!
Hmmmm! Mountain of knowledge heh? You mean like the mountain of knowledge you laid down with regards to the evolution of the eye?
It is a good thing to have a high opinion of oneself, but it is only of value if the opinion is actually warrented. Let that be your lesson for today.
There is nothing wrong with asking questions and expecting answers to them, which is all he has done, but has yet to get any serious answers.
That is a silly assumption to make.
If the eye evolved and you know it did, then show it, don't blame someone for not reading. Remember, not everyone can read. Or don't they count?
Statements like this does nothing for your self-opinion.
I suppose you mean "creationists" sites.
The thing is, they don't have any reason to promote propaganda (some anyway). There is no reason to support Darwins ideas, because it has no effect upon the human psyche. The human still has to believe in something that is real to him, in his wholeness, and evolution may just as well not exist whether he sees it as fact or not.
Darwins theory of evolution serves a different purpose, and that is to act as an opposition to God. The evolutionist always says, there is no better theory, and they are right, there is no better theory/idea that can trick people into thinking that God does not exist.
God=1, evolution=0.
Jan Ardena.
Jan Ardena,
Actually 786 has showed the first sign of true intelligence when he backed off his preconcieved conclusions about the "Mt Improbable" claim and sees that such odds are more than offset by opportunities.
This is not to say he will convert but he at least sees the problem with the assumptions he was making and promises to do more studies.
I might suggest the same for you.
Actually 786 has showed the first sign of true intelligence when he backed off his preconcieved conclusions about the "Mt Improbable" claim and sees that such odds are more than offset by opportunities.
This is not to say he will convert but he at least sees the problem with the assumptions he was making and promises to do more studies.
I might suggest the same for you.
MacM,
So "true intelligence" occurs if one sees that Darwins evolution could make sense, whether or not there are facts to support it?
I doubt that very much.
There's nothing to convert to.
You believe Darwins idea.
Then what?
Jan Ardena.
So "true intelligence" occurs if one sees that Darwins evolution could make sense, whether or not there are facts to support it?
I doubt that very much.
There's nothing to convert to.
You believe Darwins idea.
Then what?
Jan Ardena.