«

[Sly]

Originally posted by Evad@Mar 25 2005, 10:41 PM
Belief in the big bang theory doesn't refute creationalist thought.

Evad,

Did you mean that God used the big bang and evolution? If so, I can open up the can of worms that shows that the two are incompatable, the big bang theory and evolution do indeed refute creationalist thought.

[Yobor]

Originally posted by Sly@Mar 27 2005, 02:51 AM
Your example of people with sickle-cell anemia are less likely to get malaria, is like saying if you cut off your legs you can't get athelete's foot.
Both sickle-cell anemia and malaria are negative and there's no new information added.

Quite incorrect. Sickle-cell Anemia is positive if you only have one-half. It makes you immune to Malria :bleh: and besides, Sickle-cell Anemia occurred because of Malaria. The human body adapted, or EVOLVED to cope with the new threat. On the contrary, when your body stops making fingers longer, it just mean that lyphosites are nullifieing the fingers before birth because they are not needed. All genetic matter stays where it is, it just is not used. Mutations DO create new DNA. Ok, lets say you scramble up a whole bunch of subatomic particles (impossible, but lets say). These particles then form into atoms and molecules. The atoms and molecules can be COMPLETELY different from one another even if they are composed of the same things. DNA is exactly the same principle. Ever heard of HIV? The RNA in HIV makes HIV Evolve or mutate at a rapid rate, so that no matter how much we try, we will not isolate all of the strains. This is a beneficial evolution for the species, because it keeps itself alive. HIV has evolved to stop being killed by human scientists. May sound too specialized, but that is exactly what it is. HIV probably does not know that is what it is doing, but by Evolving to behave in the way it does, it achieves that exact purpose.

Ok guys, long post, but please read it. It is important.

[Havell]

Exactly what I was about to say. The ill effect of the sickle-cell anemia is far [i]far/i] outway by the positive effect of HIV resistance.
Also, mutations are what causes evolution, not all mutations are beneficial but some are. A competitive eviroment is required for evolution to take place, so any advantage that an evolution can give is extremely valuble and that desirable characteristic can be can be passed on to the next generation.
And by the bay, I study evolution at GCSE level and I got 100% in the mock exam for it, so don't say I don't know enough about it.

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by Sly@Mar 27 2005, 04:51 AM
Scrambling up existing gene code will not give you something totally new.* A turtle may be born with two heads, a cow may be born with 5 legs, or a person may be born with 11 fingers. But there's no new information added.

It seems to me, you consider evolution to be something you could see in a cheap sci-fi movie.

The fifth leg of a cow would not be new information - you're right!
But mutation is not just the visable change of form.

The fifth leg would mean that somwhere in the dna "blueprint" there was a mistake - so an extra limb grew. This mistake could be different as well. This cow could grow fangs. This would still make it a cow, but it would probably die - its teeth would not be apropriate for chewing grass. But if this cow would start eating meat (let's say would start attacking sheep) the fangs would come in handy. So the next step would be a fanged cow with the ability to (let's say) jump - to catch the pray easier. This would change the outlook of the cow. The hind legs would have to be stronger (if none of the cows would mutate that way this breed would die off). Next the cow would have to become less wounrable (the udder is to exposed). By this point you'd get a cow able to sit down (because of the change with its hind legs; it would have fangs; would eat meat - this would change it's intestance - no more 9 stomachs; this cow would have small udders and would give far less milk - also the calf could hurt the mother cow if it had fangs; the tail would be in a way - so it would have to disapeare; probably the shape of the head would change,...). So in the final stage that would not be a cow anymore. It would stop being a cow when it could not produce off spring with a normal cow - they would be incompatible. If all the evolutionary brakes would be in hte favour of the mutated cow - this could happen within dozzens of generation (and that's extremely fast).
But there are better chances that the first cow would not survive.
So just mutating isn't enough. It's when a series of small mutations (adoptations) take place and they all benifit a specie that real evolution takes place.
This is fairly common with single cell organisms - every change that happens happens within that cell and the mutation is caried to all the offspring (unless the first cell dies before spliting in two). But with more complex organism this form of mutation takes that much longer, most of mutations don't contribute to development of the race...

EDIT: Oh and about the DNA information...
There are only 4 building blocks of DNA. So a germ has the same four blocks as a human. It's the countless combinations (there is no limit to how many blocks are added to a string of DNA) that produce something new.
One stone is just a stone - million stones can be The Great Wall of China or countless amunition for a kid with a sligshot (OK maybe not the best example...).

[Hkizzle]

LOL, there are two types of threads that will go on and on, and often get really heated. That's politics (these days often Iraq/Bush arguements) and religion vs science.

A religion vs science arguement never ends because someone that thinks he is logical will always try to point to the facts, whislt those with faith will not believe God in the first place if their faith could be ripped up on an internet forum.

People tend to have faith due to personal experiences that reinforce their belief in God.

To say that a great flood is impossible is besides the point, because if you really believe in God, then the bible is God's word and must be taken literally. To not take the bible literally is to change the very foundations of christianity and God words.

I personally don't believe in genesis or stories like the great flood, simply because of the amount of evidence and data that point to the much greater liklihood of evolution.
There simply is not enough water on earth to cover all the mountains. More than likely a great flood was a flood that affected the entire population of a region.

The tsunami in Southeast Asia for example. If that happened 2000 years ago and destroyed the entire region you lived in, and it happened the day after the most religious day of your time (for us, Christmas). Then that will be your great flood, and stories would be written about it.

But a flood that covered the entire earth? I don't believe that.

But still, if you do believe in God, then he created the universe and to cover the entire earth under water would be a small feat.

So you can never win debates over people's beliefs.

[Tulac]

The Great flood probably hapenned, because it is described in many books from the old ages, but it must've been some great flood, not that caused by God but something naturaly, it was such a great cataclysm, that people all over the world knew about it...
And many of the Holy books explain pretty much the same events in a different manner, that is a well known fact...
Those are legends that have been re-told, so many times that they got distorted, and everybody saw it in their own perspective, by what their ancestors told them...
Some natural catastrophies, and other 'odd' events for that time were hapenning thousands of years ago, before christianity, and not only christians speak about it, but muslims, and other religions too(even Dogons who are a tribe in Africa, and lived isolated since 200 years ago)...
So these Holy books were used to write down unexplainable legends from the past, to make them more interesting to the read, so they can incorporate their rules, with the help of these legends...

[Yobor]

The Great Flood has no supporting evidence (scientific evidence) and eye-witness accounts do no good. I will show this to you....

A group of scientists tested 1000 people to show how good eye-witness accounts really are. The scientists told the people that they were to be tested. When the people came in to be tested, they were greeted by a man. When the man ducked behind his desk to get some paperwork, he switched places with another man. Only 30% of people noticed him switch.
Next, the scientists had the people observe a video of 4 people passing a ball. The people were supposed to watch and see how many times the ball was passed. In the middle of the film, a person in a gorilla suit walks into the middle of the four people. beats its chest, and walks off. 10% of the people noticed.

Very crazy. I read it in a magizine called Muse. Very good educational magizine (for kids). Show how little we can trust ourselves to notice things, eh?

[Tulac]

I said it probably hapenned, there are just too many legends that talk abou the same event from different nations that lived without contact with each other for thousands of years...
The witnesses were whole civilization of that time, be it that they live in Africa or Asia...
That experiment is about human observation it has nothing to do with poeople who saw that great event, and there are some other evidences that it actually hapenned....

[Havell]

I myself believe there was a flood a few thousand years ago, it is mentioned in many records from the same time peroid, from the middle east (where the old testament was written) to the far east (where Chinese records and folklore tell of a flood). Such a flood would not need to cover the entire world, only the lowlands where people actually lived (as it was easy to farm).

[Sly]

Originally posted by Sebatianos@Mar 27 2005, 05:11 AM
It seems to me, you consider evolution to be something you could see in a cheap sci-fi movie.

Yes I do believe that.

Based on your story, you just further emphasized that belief.


"The fifth leg of a cow would not be new information - you're right!"

You were correct up to this point. The fifth leg of a cow is not new information.

"But mutation is not just the visable change of form."

Your story below was all about visable change of form.

"The fifth leg would mean that somwhere in the dna "blueprint" there was a mistake - so an extra limb grew. "

I agree with you there.
Then you went on this tangent, that looks like it just came straight out of a sci-fi script. I underlined the problems in your dialogue.. Please see my "Main Point", I posted before.

"This mistake could be different as well. This cow could grow fangs. This would still make it a cow, but it would probably die - its teeth would not be apropriate for chewing grass. But if this cow would start eating meat (let's say would start attacking sheep) the fangs would come in handy. So the next step would be a fanged cow with the ability to (let's say) jump - to catch the pray easier. This would change the outlook of the cow. The hind legs would have to be stronger (if none of the cows would mutate that way this breed would die off). Next the cow would have to become less wounrable (the udder is to exposed). By this point you'd you would? get a cow able to sit down (because of the change with its hind legs; it would have fangs; would eat meat - this would change it's intestance - no more 9 stomachs; this cow would have small udders and would give far less milk - also the calf could hurt the mother cow if it had fangs; the tail would be in a way - so it would have to disapeare; probably the shape of the head would change,...). So in the final stage that would not be a cow anymore. It would stop being a cow when it could not produce off spring with a normal cow - they would be incompatible. If all the evolutionary brakes would be in hte favour of the mutated cow - this could happen within dozzens of generation (and that's extremely fast).
But there are better chances that the first cow would not survive.
So just mutating isn't enough. It's when a series of small mutations (adoptations) take place and they all benifit a specie that real evolution takes place.
This is fairly common with single cell organisms - every change that happens happens within that cell and the mutation is caried to all the offspring (unless the first cell dies before spliting in two). But with more complex organism this form of mutation takes that much longer, most of mutations don't contribute to development of the race..."