If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in...

[P. M. Thorne]

FROM SNAKELORD: This isn't about "wanting things so badly". All due respect, but any information regarding ape to man ancestry doesn't prevent me from one day lying down and dying. If it were about want, I could just as easily believe i'll meet my loved ones when i die, get to live all over again without murderers, rapists, and so on, but I'm not the kind of man who can just desperately cling to fantasies through fear of my own mortality. Instead, I must go where the evidence is, not where the evidence is not. I wouldn't expect a religious man to understand this - after all, they've found all their answers and it satisfies them enough - just like it did with the ancient egyptians, the mayans, aztecs, romans, greeks and so on. In amongst all of those were people who sought the facts - not because they want to laugh at religious people, but because they want to know the truth. If it wasn't for people fighting to find the truth, we'd still believe the world was flat, that the world was the center of the universe, that angels carried the four winds, and so on. Mere say so, doesn't make something true - and that is where we differ.

Yes, it is, and it is a bit too bad that we have come no closer to a mutual core of belief. I should think that you would know by now that I honor your right to believe anything your heart desires.

SNAKELORD: But once again, you state "it's just a theory", but then what is your entire faith built on? That doesn't even make it to theory status, more like... pure baseless assumption. Also, you should familiarize yourself with the status of "theory" within the scientific community.

This last part is a good example of why we are so far apart on this and other things. You seem too often to carry your arguement to a state of dishonor and might I say, "poking fun." What is theology then? You would strip anyone who has a different point of view quite bare if you could. What can I say? You a cute little doggie, and you know what? He still walks on four legs much like the wolves. Furthermore, breeding had more to do with the variety of dogs than evolution; or, do you disagree with this as well?

Be good to yourself. PMT

 

[Flores]

Flores:

I disagree. In genetic terms, this is very clear-cut. Genes mutate at random, due to a number of processes. There is nothing at all which can be said to guide the mutation of genes (unless God has a hidden hand in that process - maybe there you could drive a small wedge for your "design" argument).

You don't certainly know that. Random is a terrible term to use, because you must define what constitues random....and please don't tell me that something is random because you don't the answer to it.. If we can characterize something to be random, then It must have displayed a certain uniform behavior that would qualify it as random based on your definition, and any uniform behavior that being predictable or unpredictable is not random anymore. Do you get my drift?

On the other hand, as I explained, natural selection is non-random. When we talk about natural selection, we are not talking about the chance accidents of life which kill some animals and spare others. We are talking about general environmental factors which affect all animals of a species in a particular region equally (apart from differences in their phenotypes derived from the innate variations between the genes of individual animals).

Again, you don't certainly know anything about the order of the environment so that you can define natural selection as non-random. For example, the difference between a thunderstorm event and a dry event could be few degrees of moisture levels. The moisture level is dependant on many things, and our climate is a collaboration of many probabilities and chances. Another example is wind.....Wind is a result of difference in air densities. The chance of meeting the exact condition to result in a certain magnitude wind is very very small....so you see, our environment is not as orderly as you think.

In the sense of natural selection, "the environment" includes the entire ecosystem in which an animal (or plant or whatever) lives. An animal's environment includes the climate, the indigenous plant species, other species of animal in the region, and other members of the animal's own species.

yes, but you must understand that all these "environmental system" follow a skewed curve of unknown characteristics. That's why we refer to storms as 100 year flood. Meaning a flood that have a chance of happening every 100 years. We also have a 5000 year flood, a 1^6 year flood, and so on. Our environment is a probability of occurance and historic records....and guess what, the show aint over yet.

No. Life is a continuum, not a bunch of discrete groups.

I agree with this. I call it the seamless web designed by god.

I read the rest of your post and it's very good, but I have one point of my own to make. You seem to be finally following my model of establishing templates and overlaying them in discussing the topic, and I'm gratefull for that, but I'm surprised that you didn't see the obvious out of your environmental template overlay.

I will not give you the answer now, but i ask you to consider a silly analogy. If I tailor for James a suit that is bigger than his size, do you think he or his kids can grow into it just because this is the only suit that is available for them?? On the same token, if the suit was too small and too constricting, what do you think will happen to you and the suit? I understand that a suit is not as dynamic as our environment, but it's close....our environment is much more static than you think. And don't be decieved please...is it easier to change a static object or a moving target??? for god sake, don't pick moving target.

Hint, what are the dynamics involved in our potential to change and our environment potential to change? Who is more resistant to change? Whoes more dynamic? Don't you think that change will follow the least resistive path? Do you think that we could be shaping our environment much more than our environment might be shaping us?..think about this in terms of evolution and get back to me.

 

[Flores]

riverwind riverwind
Are you steady as the river or does your mood swing like the wind?
Be patient my dear, the answer is right between your legs.

 

[river-wind]

riverwind riverwind
Are you steady as the river or does your mood swing like the wind?
Be patient my dear, the answer is right between your legs.

I'd agree that reproduction is is an integral part of evolution. In fact, it is my personal opinion that both death and reproduction exsist as a factor of evolution.

Attempting to propigate a change across an entire body is too difficult. When an individual need to change often in a changing environement, it is much simpler to make a change to a part of your body, kill off the original, and allow the part to re-grow - all changes now part of the whole. IMO, there is a good chance that death and reproduction were not original parts of life, but evolved in as part of the system very early on. Were we to find life trapped in an unchanging environment, I would bet that you might see only one individual, having lived since the day it came into being. Abiogenisis, and no reproduction.

For example, viruses do not "live", reproduce, and "die", as we define those things. They may be evidence that the common cycle of death is not a universal factor for life at all.

However, there is little evidence for this other than logical conclusion, so I don't attempt to parade this idea around as any more than a personal theory.



As for my emotional state, the dual nature of the name should answer your question. Besides, rivers are hardly steady when the timeline looked at is long enough, and winds stand still when time is frozen. Nothing can be defined outside of its perspective and situation.

 

[SnakeLord]

Yes, it is, and it is a bit too bad that we have come no closer to a mutual core of belief. I should think that you would know by now that I honor your right to believe anything your heart desires.

And yet at the same time try to just brush-off those principles as "hearts desires". For the second time now, this isn't about desire, want, or 'faith' - it's about where the evidence leads, what the facts show, what the truth is. You can't change facts simply by believing in something else, but the religious people of the world think they can. Facts are facts whether you want them to be or not, evidence is evidence.. you can't just ignore it in the hopes it will go away and leave you secure in your assumptions of invisible cloud beings. Don't get me wrong, you can believe in any one of the millions of gods you so choose, but for people to be so quick to deny what the evidence shows, and then be unable to provide any evidence against it, is daft.

No, evolution doesn't answer every question on the planet, and there's still a vast amount of data that needs to be collected and tested, but theres no call to just summarily dismiss it.

This last part is a good example of why we are so far apart on this and other things. You seem too often to carry your arguement to a state of dishonor and might I say, "poking fun."

Ah, so when you do it, it's being honourable, but when I do the same it's poking fun? You said "evolution is just a theory", I said "god/belief is just an assumption". That is why it's called "faith", after all. I'm not poking fun, or being dishonourable - I am just letting you know how it is - just as you are informing me about evolution. Don't play the martyr, please. However of course, you could just prove me wrongand provide the evidence.

You would strip anyone who has a different point of view quite bare if you could. What can I say?

Well that's not true. If someone can support their claims with evidence and facts, then it wouldn't be so easy to pull apart. I can only go where the evidence leads, and if you want me to give consideration to your beliefs, you need to back them up with something of worth, not just mere speculation. If it were that way, I'd be out looking for the gold at the end of the rainbow, hunting down bigfoot, and sneaking a peek up my chimney on christmas eve.

He still walks on four legs much like the wolves.

Of course he does. The speed advantages of having 4 legs as opposed to 2 is immense. Take a look at the cheetah for example. My dog's primary source of food would be rabbits, cats maybe, and other small animals. If he had two legs, he'd starve to death.

Furthermore, breeding had more to do with the variety of dogs than evolution

Well it's a forced evolution, with humans using systematic selection: which involves carefully selecting certain dogs for inherited traits like body type, coat characteristics, speed, herding, hunting, endurance, and size. Over time, breeders choices produce animals with distinctive looks and abilities. The saluki, basenji, and greyhound are just a few examples.

Then you have Sports which refer to puppies with an unusual trait, such as hairlessness or lack of a tail. This includes the mutation for achondroplasic dwarfism that causes limbs to stop growing prematurely resulting in short-limbed breeds like dachshunds and basset hounds. Sport mutations generally don't help dogs survive in the wild but they can give a dog an exotic look that appeals to breeders.

And of course, you have cross breeding.

Yes, breeding plays the role here, but it is evolution. Of course, with your view that evolution means a dog should be walking on two legs, no wonder you're getting confused. In the meantime, take a visit round some sites regarding evolution of dogs or something.

Instead of natural selection, this is more breeder selection. If it was left to natural selection, and dogs were not tame animals, there would be no such thing as dachsunds, bassets etc.

Be good to yourself

Always am.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Flores, the points you have made were covered years ago, you are in fact using your lack of education as a weapon.
It should not be anyone here's responsibility to keep you up to date on common knowledge.
If you have non confrontational questions thats one thing, but what you are doing will understandably irritate others who have taken the time to learn about these things.

 

[wesmorris]

Flores, the points you have made were covered years ago, you are in fact using your lack of education as a weapon.
It should not be anyone here's responsibility to keep you up to date on common knowledge.
If you have non confrontational questions thats one thing, but what you are doing will understandably irritate others who have taken the time to learn about these things.

Inflamatory bastard.

 

[Raithere]

Random is a terrible term to use, because you must define what constitues random...

Random, in context, means unpredictable both in essence and in consequence. That mutation is random means that a mutation may occur with equal probability anywhere along the gene sequence and that what the change will be is unpredictable. Most mutations are corrected by cellular processes but a percentage of these mutations escape correction. Most of these are benign, having no ill effect upon the cell or the organism, some are harmful, and some are beneficial.

Again, you don't certainly know anything about the order of the environment so that you can define natural selection as non-random.

While the environment itself is somewhat random remember we're talking about generations of time, not day to day activity. The overall climate of a geographic region does not change significantly on a day to day basis; there are year long patterns and longer patterns lasting thousands of years. Obviously any species must be flexible enough to withstand any normal range of environmental conditions that occur day to day or even year to year.

I will not give you the answer now, but i ask you to consider a silly analogy. If I tailor for James a suit that is bigger than his size, do you think he or his kids can grow into it just because this is the only suit that is available for them??

You really have to start thinking in terms of populations and generations, not individuals. If fitting better into the suit has survival advantages those individuals that fit better will have a better chance of survival and reproductions, those that do not will be more likely to die. Over generations the population will move closer and closer towards fitting the suit. No one is suggesting that if James falls off a cliff he will sprout wings and fly. That is not Evolution.

Hint, what are the dynamics involved in our potential to change and our environment potential to change? Who is more resistant to change? Whoes more dynamic? Don't you think that change will follow the least resistive path? Do you think that we could be shaping our environment much more than our environment might be shaping us?..think about this in terms of evolution and get back to me.

You ask a good question but you're indicating the wrong answer. Were the Neanderthals able to stop the last ice age? We're the Mastodons able to prevent the global warming that brought the Earth back out of the ice age? Can you stop the Sahara from growing or halt El Nino? Life adapts because it is extraordinarily difficult to change environmental patterns. Everyone is talking about 'Global Warming' but in 100 years of pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in ever increasing amounts we have maybe raised the temperature 1.8 degrees.

~Raithere

 

[Bells]

Sounds like you got some experience in the category of "little girls with lollypops".

Yes Flores, when I was 5.

Hint hint, to save on my lollypop fund, I may just ask you to turn around indefinetly so I can check out the broad of your shoulders and plumpness of your butt....

Why Flores you saucy wench you . But alas I am not that way inclined. If I were male I'd find you kinky .

In all seriousness Flores, I'm going to ask you something. Why don't you believe in evolution? There is no proof that you as you are were created through God's plan. The only reason that you exist is because of your parents. Evolution instead offers proof of our origins. Why don't the facts speak to you? My mother is a strict Christian and she attends Church just about every week. As a result she and my father have become very good friends with the priest and one day he was there for dinner and I asked him about evolution and whether he believed in evolution or creation. His reply was to tell me a joke as an explanation of his beliefs:

A God fearing family lived on a farm. One day the weather report forecast floods in their region. That very afternoon the police came to their door and told them they had to evacuate as the water levels were rising and they could soon be in danger. They replied 'no we shall not leave our home, God will save us and prevent harm from coming to us'. That night the flood waters arrived and they were forced to flee to the second floor of their home... the water was still rising. The police arrived again by boat and to rescue them. Again they replied 'no we shall not leave as God will protect us and save us' and the boat left. By dawn the water had risen to such an extent that they were forced to seek shelter on their roof. The house was literally swaying in the flood and the police arrived again, this time by helicopter to rescue them. They yet again replied 'no we shall not leave because God will save us and never let harm come to us' and they refused to get on the helicopter. By noon the house had been swept away and the family all drowned thinking that God would save them. They got to heaven and when they saw God they asked him why he had not saved them... they were shocked that he'd let them drown. God's reply was 'I sent you a message that you had to leave, yet you refused. I sent a boat to rescue you and you refused. I sent you a helicopter and you refused. You refused to see what was in front of you as fact so you ended up drowning'.

What the priest then went on to say Flores in regards to evolution was that some people are so blinded by their faith that they refuse to see what is right in front of their noses. As he stated, science has proven our origins but people refuse to accept what is so blatantly obvious that they cling to something that is completely unknown and unproven only based on blind faith.

 

[mountainhare]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Lou Natic
Flores, the points you have made were covered years ago, you are in fact using your lack of education as a weapon.
It should not be anyone here's responsibility to keep you up to date on common knowledge.
If you have non confrontational questions thats one thing, but what you are doing will understandably irritate others who have taken the time to learn about these things.


wes: Inflamatory bastard.

How is Dr. Lou being inflamatory?
He pretty much repeated what I stated a few pages back (about the shotgun attack).

As he stated, science has proven our origins but people refuse to accept what is so blatantly obvious that they cling to something that is completely unknown and unproven only based on blind faith.

Well said, Bells!
I loved the anecdote.

 

[Flores]

As he stated, science has proven our origins but people refuse to accept what is so blatantly obvious that they cling to something that is completely unknown and unproven only based on blind faith.

Actually, thanks for the example. You claim that science has proven our origin, so I ask you to right here and right now SHOW ME MY ORIGIN.

Come on, Show me my origin little doll?

And when you're done showing me my origin, I expect you to immediately put your foot where your mouth is and show us how can you originate anything from a complete vacuum....and please don't start by saying, well, the environment was perfectly waiting there for life to start and it even gave it a push of unicellular organisms.....That's not orgination my dear.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

especially for Flores who wants to know her origin:

Flores' origin

 

[Flores]

In all seriousness Flores, I'm going to ask you something. Why don't you believe in evolution?

I save my believes for things that are worthwhile..I study evolution, I don't believe in evolution.

There is no proof that you as you are were created through God's plan.

You sound like you know god's plan. I sure don't claim to know anything about god nor his plan. I simply say that I was created under unknown circumstances by god, and as I told you before the definition of god is "Nature, essence, ect..."

The only reason that you exist is because of your parents.

That's not true. I exist for a gazillion and one reasons. Life is the fruit of a gazillion cooperation of efforts that all move together so well in the order set by the unique creator of our universe. My parents are one of god's many many tools in the seamless web of creation...

Evolution instead offers proof of our origins.

I don't like your watered down diluted version of proof. Use your words a bit more wisely....Aristotle once said..."It's a sign of an educated mind, if you can entertain a thought without believing in it"... That's exactly how I view evolution. I'll entertain discussions on the subject, but you better believe that I don't believe that it's a bullet proof theory....

Why don't the facts speak to you? My mother is a strict Christian and she attends Church just about every week.

As a result she and my father have become very good friends with the priest and one day he was there for dinner and I asked him about evolution and whether he believed in evolution or creation. His reply was to tell me a joke as an explanation of his beliefs:

Well, both my parents are level headed people that don't attend any cult organizations, my dad is a pioneer in the automotive business, just ask general motors, and my mom is the best Sanitary engineer alive. My grandma has a PhD in law and was a judge..... I don't have the complexes you have and I'm sorry I can't relate to your subintelligent stories. The stories I have heard growing up are much different that the stuff you were obviously brought up in. I don't have complexes about religion...It's not easy to be you, and I don't know what I would be if I had parents like yours. I would probably have hated religion.

Your style of discussion reminds me of a situation that I was in when I first came to the US, at age of 18. When I came here, I rented a small apartment with my sister next to college and it was quite tough the first few month to understand and settle in the system. I had no friends at all, and thus one day, a couple of jehova wittness girls, came to my house and knocked on the door. I was excited to meet people, so I asked them to come in. They told me that they wanted to be my friends and that they will help me settle down, meet people, ect...They asked me to join them in church. I told them that I'm a muslim, but I have no problem meeting them in their church. I was so innocent, I thought they wanted to be my friends for real. Anyways, I went to this church, and they were there. They asked me to listen to the sermon, and here was a guy, perhaps 20 some years old on the podium in a suit talking about how he used to sell drugs and beat his mom, and how that when he found Jesus he became a better person. The first thing in mind was...I have nothing in common with these people. I don't deal drugs, I don't beat my mom. These people were obviously substandards and how could I expect their understanding of religion to be any different. I don't know why this story came to my mind when you started sharing with me your parents religious background, but it did.

A God fearing family lived on a farm. One day the weather report forecast floods in their region. That very afternoon the police came to their door and told them they had to evacuate as the water levels were rising and they could soon be in danger. They replied 'no we shall not leave our home, God will save us and prevent harm from coming to us'. That night the flood waters arrived and they were forced to flee to the second floor of their home... the water was still rising. The police arrived again by boat and to rescue them. Again they replied 'no we shall not leave as God will protect us and save us' and the boat left. By dawn the water had risen to such an extent that they were forced to seek shelter on their roof. The house was literally swaying in the flood and the police arrived again, this time by helicopter to rescue them. They yet again replied 'no we shall not leave because God will save us and never let harm come to us' and they refused to get on the helicopter. By noon the house had been swept away and the family all drowned thinking that God would save them. They got to heaven and when they saw God they asked him why he had not saved them... they were shocked that he'd let them drown. God's reply was 'I sent you a message that you had to leave, yet you refused. I sent a boat to rescue you and you refused. I sent you a helicopter and you refused. You refused to see what was in front of you as fact so you ended up drowning'.

I like your joke....but you're talking to the wrong person. Because I'm the one that actually forcast the storms and issue the FEMA warnings.....If you don't believe me, check out your insurance policy, you'll find hurricans, earthquakes, flooding, ect....described as "Acts of god".

 

[river-wind]

um, I don't think that story was meant as a joke, to be honest...

As for "Acts of God" in insurance policies - the fact that most human civilizations, including western civ., has a history of religion as a ruling class can be seen in left-overs, even today. "In God we trust" on coins, etc, are the vestigial organs left by the evolution of western culture over the past few hundred years. same goes for "acts of god", it is a leftover term used instead of "shit we can't control or fully predict."
either term works, one is considered more marketable, and is used.


note: using the word "evolution" in terms of society is only partly accurate - the path taken by human culture is more consciously directed than natural evolution.

 

[Flores]

Random, in context, means unpredictable both in essence and in consequence.

unpredictable in what terms?, and by what predictive equations or models? you are implying that if we can't predict it's pattern by our limited knowledge then that deems it unpredictable. I'm sorry, but I believe that everything has a pattern and order, even what may seem to you to be the most random thing.

That mutation is random means that a mutation may occur with equal probability anywhere along the gene sequence and that what the change will be is unpredictable.

Probability is not a science. Probability is a human perception based on historic observation. There is a scinece to gene mutation, but we probably are not their yet in our progress to figure it out, so we use probability instead.

Most mutations are corrected by cellular processes but a percentage of these mutations escape correction. Most of these are benign, having no ill effect upon the cell or the organism, some are harmful, and some are beneficial.

I'm sick and tired over the overuse of this term mutation. I'm trying to entertain it as much as I can, but hell, mutation is not the method by which cells are build and maintained...Mutation is an abnormality in the cells that as you said is corrected by cellular processes. How can you then attribute creation of a cell to mutation. A cell is not created by mutation. Mutation can not be responsible for the ant being an ant and a human being a human. What made an ant an ant, and a human a human??? So again, explain to me how mutation ALONE have resulted in a human being evolving from a simple cell? and when does mutation make an ant stay like an ant, and a beaver become a beaver? I don't believe that gene mutation on it's own can develop life as we see it in such complexity and variation. Raith, if mutation is playing any role in evolution, then it's such a weak role and it's restricted to an already established species. You haven't shown any proof that mutation is the sole reason of cell building.

While the environment itself is somewhat random remember we're talking about generations of time, not day to day activity. The overall climate of a geographic region does not change significantly on a day to day basis; there are year long patterns and longer patterns lasting thousands of years.

I agree with you. The environment has no degrees of freedom as available to life to manuever and adapt.....but our currenct knowledge of the patterns doesn't support this premises...hell, our oldest guages for the environment are less than 100 years old and the data are so screwy that we normally get a 100 year event every year.

Obviously any species must be flexible enough to withstand any normal range of environmental conditions that occur day to day or even year to year.

That have nothing to do with evolution...how man evolved from one cell. And how the one cell came into being. And how the cell developed intelligence and self awareness.

You really have to start thinking in terms of populations and generations, not individuals.

I think I'm doing that.

If fitting better into the suit has survival advantages those individuals that fit better will have a better chance of survival and reproductions, those that do not will be more likely to die.

That's not evolution. That's natural selection. Out of the many classes of people alive, a few will survive...I don't see a scenario where a new breed is created.

Over generations the population will move closer and closer towards fitting the suit. No one is suggesting that if James falls off a cliff he will sprout wings and fly. That is not Evolution.

I like your answer, because you have just demonstrated to all of us that the environment can only favor ONE thing at the time. This doesn't support the fact that life is very diversed.

The survival of 7ft 250 pounds individuals is not evolution or adaptation, it's merely survival of the fittest. The fact that we have such a diverse life all in one place under the same environment doesn't leave me but to conclude that natural selection and evolution is not the cause of life diversity.

You ask a good question but you're indicating the wrong answer. Were the Neanderthals able to stop the last ice age? We're the Mastodons able to prevent the global warming that brought the Earth back out of the ice age?

The question is not whether life could have stopped the imminent, the question is whether life have caused it and did life survive it? I asked if we are more dynamic than our environment....Your answer is clearly yes, and that makes the environment subservient to life just like the Quran said.

Life adapts because it is extraordinarily difficult to change environmental patterns.

The inflexibility and harshnes of the environment makes life the only reason the environment is there to begin with.

 

[Flores]

"In God we trust" on coins, etc, are the vestigial organs left by the evolution of western culture over the past few hundred years. same goes for "acts of god", it is a leftover term used instead of "shit we can't control or fully predict."

It's not a left over term...It's a term that is poorly misunderstood.

 

[river-wind]

here is a twenty-odd page thread on this same topic. The original poster's final question seems to be "show me an RNA-only creature." Well, in case anyone else has the same question after reading the thread, let me answer that question: a virus.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=6054&page=1&pp=15&highlight=Evolution

now, there are other threads here on sci forums on this topic, look down at the bottom of this page, there should be a few listed.


Flores: ok, that's a matter of opinion. If I believed in God with any sort of certainty, I guess I'd agree with you there.
Above, you say that probability is not a science. That is an interesting assertion, I'd like to get into it more. also, when talking about determinism and such, we are more getting into Philosophy and less experimental science. Still a valid topic of discussion, but less in the realm of biology.
If random mutation cannot occur, but actually has a pattern and reason behind it, then does that effect the net effect of that pattern? If the pattern does not have a conscious driving those mutaions; if the mutations still occur without sentient input or direction, then they can not be 'random' while still allowing for the idea of evolution to remain functional.

and if we are arguing evolution as an idea, then the randomness of the mutations isn't required for evolution to take place. While the classic definition of Evolution relies on purely random mutation, alot of the Origen of species has been removed from the theory of evolution. Evolution, albeit, in a modified form, can still exist even if it is determined that God is directing which genes mutate and how.

The idea is that given those mutations, a non-random selection process, based around the environment involved, allows for a certain characteristics, determined by genes, to pass on to future individuals of the species. It currently assumes that the mutation is random, but it can adapt, just like every scientific theory.

 

[mountainhare]

Probability is not a science.

Whoa!
Where did you hear THAT from?
Science IS probabilistic, not absolute...

unpredictable in what terms?, and by what predictive equations or models? you are implying that if we can't predict it's pattern by our limited knowledge then that deems it unpredictable. I'm sorry, but I believe that everything has a pattern and order, even what may seem to you to be the most random thing.

Your BELIEF that it is not random is NOT supported by evidence. However, I'm sure that scientists could show you how random mutations actually are.
Hence, until you can prove that it is not random, then it will continued to be seen as random...

There is a scinece to gene mutation, but we probably are not their yet in our progress to figure it out, so we use probability instead.

Probability is a very big part of science.

You might find this interesting, Flores:
http://omega.albany.edu:8008/JaynesBook.html

It's a downloadable book about how probability is the essence of science.

mutation is not the method by which cells are build and maintained.

*shakes head*
And I am starting to get tired of you unestimating the power of a mutation to add information and complexity.
I already gave sources to BENEFICAL mutations which ADDED information several pages back.

Mutation is an abnormality in the cells that as you said is corrected by cellular processes.

Many mutations during meiosis and the development of a foetus are not corrected. I don't know who told you that 'all mutations are corrected'. Otherwise, babies wouldn't have 6 fingers/toes etc.

How can you then attribute creation of a cell to mutation.

Now you're being confusing. What do you mean by this statement?
Are you talking about when life first appearing, or any life?
DNA dictates how a cell will be created...

Mutation can not be responsible for the ant being an ant and a human being a human.

Ahh. But differences in DNA can be responsible for differences in organisms.
And what causes these differences in DNA?
MUTATIONS!

So again, explain to me how mutation ALONE have resulted in a human being evolving from a simple cell?

Mutations were not alone, natural selection chose which mutations were to survive.

What is there to explain about mutations causing a single cell to 'evolve' to a human?(techinally incorrect, however, this simplified version will have to do).
Mutations caused changes in the DNA. These changes produced new organisms. Eventually, enough mutations accumulated, and BANG, human (once again, simplified.)

when does mutation make an ant stay like an ant, and a beaver become a beaver?

What the hell are you talking about?

Many mutations are stable. They are passed on from generation to generation, as mutations ARE a part of the genetic makeup. And the genetic makeup is passed to offspring due to meiosis.

I don't believe that gene mutation on it's own can develop life as we see it in such complexity and variation.

Well, your BELIEFS are quite flimsy without accompying evidence.
Saying "Wow, this is sooo complex. I don't know how this came into being naturally, so God did it!" is not an argument. It's an appeal to ignorance, and an appeal to incredulity and complexity.

Raith, if mutation is playing any role in evolution, then it's such a weak role and it's restricted to an already established species.

Mutation has caused speciation (the creation of new species)...

For new phyla or genus's to be created, we would need to be observing animals for a few million years, as this is probably how long it would take for enough mutations to accumulate.

You haven't shown any proof that mutation is the sole reason of cell building.

Who ever claimed this?
DNA is the sole reason for sole building.
Change the DNA (with mutations), and you change the form of the cells.

That have nothing to do with evolution...how man evolved from one cell

No, that's not evolution. Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population.

THAT'S evolution.

That's not evolution. That's natural selection. Out of the many classes of people alive, a few will survive...I don't see a scenario where a new breed is created.

New breeds don't need to be created. Once again, evolution is the change of the frequency of alleles in a population over a period of time.
That's the definition biologists all over the world use.

 

[Raithere]

unpredictable in what terms?, and by what predictive equations or models?
...
I'm sorry, but I believe that everything has a pattern and order, even what may seem to you to be the most random thing.

Why don't we just say unpredictable in any practical sense, you really cannot get around the concept simply by questioning what is random. Radiation, for instance can cause mutation. That a particular particle will hit a segment of DNA in a particular cell and physically disrupt it not within any conceivable realm of calculation.

If you feel that this level of control leaves the door open for a deliberate act of God, that's fine although I will point out that this is simply a 'God of the gaps' argument. You're also arguing for guided evolution and not against Evolution. It also brings to mind the question about what kind of God deliberately causes cancer and other horrible defects.

The important fact is that mutations occur with equal (as far as I am aware) frequency along the entire length of the DNA sequence. Any portion can and does change. Enough of these changes through enough generations provides for the mathematical space for all known life forms to develop.

Probability is not a science. Probability is a human perception based on historic observation. There is a scinece to gene mutation, but we probably are not their yet in our progress to figure it out, so we use probability instead.

I'm not sure what you're after here. Probability is a mathematical expression of data. Yes, it's historically based but it's also a useful tool in prediction.

I'm sick and tired over the overuse of this term mutation. I'm trying to entertain it as much as I can, but hell, mutation is not the method by which cells are build and maintained...Mutation is an abnormality in the cells that as you said is corrected by cellular processes.

You cannot arbitrarily redefine scientific concepts to meet your personal standards and expect the result make any sense. Within context a mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence. I will use the word change if that makes you feel any differently about it. Not all changes in the DNA sequence are harmful, most are benign and some are beneficial. Also, as I already stated not all of these changes are corrected.

How can you then attribute creation of a cell to mutation.

This delves more into Abiogenesis than it does Evolution. We don't know how the first cell(s) evolved but there are a number of possibilities. The facts are that cells exist and that genetic changes occur.

Mutation can not be responsible for the ant being an ant and a human being a human. What made an ant an ant, and a human a human???

Yes, it can. The form of both ants and humans is determined by their genetic sequence, given that this sequence can change, be added to, or subtracted from all that is required are the appropriate changes.

So again, explain to me how mutation ALONE have resulted in a human being evolving from a simple cell?

It doesn't. Mutations filtered by natural selection have resulted in the evolution of human beings.

and when does mutation make an ant stay like an ant, and a beaver become a beaver?

Mutation occurs all the time but unless there is a selective pressure this only leads to variation within the population. Mutations occur one at a time but evolution happens in populations across generations.

I don't believe that gene mutation on it's own can develop life as we see it in such complexity and variation.

Okay, let's get back to the basics then. Do you believe that all life forms in their amazing complexity and variation are defined by the structure of their DNA?

I agree with you. The environment has no degrees of freedom as available to life to manuever and adapt.....but our currenct knowledge of the patterns doesn't support this premises...hell, our oldest guages for the environment are less than 100 years old and the data are so screwy that we normally get a 100 year event every year.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Please reiterate.

That have nothing to do with evolution...how man evolved from one cell.

Let's start from the basics like I mentioned above and we'll work our way to this.

And how the one cell came into being.

For the moment just accept that we don't have an explanation for this, we'll get to it and its ramifications later.

That's not evolution. That's natural selection. Out of the many classes of people alive, a few will survive...I don't see a scenario where a new breed is created.

You're half-way there. All you have to understand is that changes in DNA do occur and allow for changes within the population.

I like your answer, because you have just demonstrated to all of us that the environment can only favor ONE thing at the time.

Not at all. The environment is not the same everywhere on Earth nor does the environment in any place consist of a single factor, you have to consider climate, resources, competition, predation, etc.

The fact that we have such a diverse life all in one place under the same environment doesn't leave me but to conclude that natural selection and evolution is not the cause of life diversity.

Again, any one environment consists of many differing conditions. Life is also a component of the environment so changes that occur in a population affect the environment.

The question is not whether life could have stopped the imminent, the question is whether life have caused it and did life survive it? I asked if we are more dynamic than our environment....Your answer is clearly yes, and that makes the environment subservient to life just like the Quran said.

To a certain extent yes. But the environment is also subject to even greater forces that life has no ability to affect... such as the laws of chemistry and physics and remote events like the energy output of the Sun.

The inflexibility and harshnes of the environment makes life the only reason the environment is there to begin with.

I don't follow you on this.

Let's try to work our way back into a decent explanation. Start with my question above, "Do you believe that all life forms in their amazing complexity and variation are defined by the structure of their DNA?"

~Raithere

 

[Bells]

Well, both my parents are level headed people that don't attend any cult organizations, my dad is a pioneer in the automotive business, just ask general motors, and my mom is the best Sanitary engineer alive. My grandma has a PhD in law and was a judge..... I don't have the complexes you have and I'm sorry I can't relate to your subintelligent stories. The stories I have heard growing up are much different that the stuff you were obviously brought up in. I don't have complexes about religion...It's not easy to be you, and I don't know what I would be if I had parents like yours. I would probably have hated religion.

Why Flores, thank you for judging my parents not to be level headed and cult members. Coming from someone who professes to be a Muslim and who discounts evolution instead prefering to believe that she was created by God, well, that only tells me that your hypocrisy levels are off the scale.

You say you can't relate to my sub-intelligent theories, well I can't relate to your religious theories as to how we are where we are today. My parents may be catholics and I may have been brought up a catholic, just like you were brought up a Muslim, but at least my parents understand scientific theories better than you appear to. I don't have any complexes about my origins Flores, nor do I have any complexes about my religious upbringing or about my parents. I'm proud of the way my parents allowed me to grow up and learn all sides of all equations before I made up my mind as to what I believed in. If I marry a non-catholic, my parents wouldn't give a shit and they or I would never expect that my better half convert either. And I can assure you that if you had parents like mine, you'd be a lot more educated and a lot more open minded than you are today.