Poll: Evolution and the other side
- Thread starter AlexNora
- Start date
Recommended Videos
i have to be honest i don't understand what this means xDtheultimateend said:
people that have sent me pm's know it may take me bit of time to get to you and i have alot of messages so if you feel ignored for to long as the week goes on resend me a message XD
other then that please be kind to each other as you try to tear each others beliefs apart...
(facts beliefs whatever...)
also Ragnarok is having good events lately so i may disappear for several hours (plus i have to maintain a web site) and work on my manga...
wouldn't it be crazy if my manga involved this forum somehow?
Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, which are a central part of computational theory.monfang said:
Your inability to find things posted in this thread is not an indication of anything but your inability to find things posted in this thread. But if you like, I can -explain- Godel's Incompleteness Theorems for you, and how it relates to cognition. It's actually not that complex!
Did you find the video on abiogenesis posted in this thread? Did you watch it? You still haven't confirmed that. You relaly should. It's only been posted four times.
Then please do so. Prove anything besides your ignorance, please.monfang said:
Well, at least this is coherent with his claim that those amino acids can not be used to build proteins. Finally a point in his argumentation where he does NOT contradict himself.lotr rocks 0 said:
I don't get what you're trying to say... He just said that DNA is made of amino acids, and that if D-amino acids get mixed in with L-amino acids in the DNA that it's lethal.Thaliur said:
Common Design, Common Designer. Long-debunked. Asserted without evidence. Argument is dismissed. [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI141.html]YamadaJisho said:
Now we get to the crux of the matter: you don't understand evolution.monfang said:
However, based on your conduct in the thread so far, I believe it would be a waste of my time to attempt to fix your misconceptions about evolution. You have presented plenty of evidence that you will not accept the facts given to you (especially in your repeated, unfounded assertions of a distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution). Oh well.
He doesn't understand basic principles or concepts in science, and is not willing to listen to people who do. Lost cause battle for us rational people here.evilneko said:
First off, I find it hard to listen to a man who lies under oath. But that's nether here or there. Oh wait. It is here and there. That video is apparently about his trial, the trial where he lied under oath.Amphoteric said:
Of course ID advocates couldn't go against what he said. What he said goes against evolution. there is nothing more to be said.
Exactly. Try replacing any of the nucleotides in any DNA strand with an amino acid.lotr rocks 0 said:
The chirality isn't even important, the DNA would stop working. So, yes, forcing D-type amino acid into the DNA replication process is disruptive and potentially deadly ;-)
First, accepting evolution does not make one an atheist, and being an atheist does not mean one supports evolution.YamadaJisho said:
Second, the "other side" consists of ignorance, lies, and nothing else. Creationists claim things are hoaxes when they aren't (Lucy was called a hoax, either in this thread or one of the other recent evolution/creation threads), they claim credit for things they don't deserve credit for (I've seen Creationists try to claim that their camp came up with Punctuated Equilibrium, when it was actually a paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould, who were NOT Creationists), that evolution or abiogenesis (which they insist are the same thing) break the Second Law of Thermodynamics (a claim that relies on a failure to understand the law), that evolution is "just a theory" (equivocating the scientific and non-scientific definitions of 'theory'), that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are different (they are the exact same process over different time scales), that there are no transitional fossils (most fossils are transitional), and so on. Oh, and they also spend a fair bit of time accusing scientists of lying, manipulating data, and covering up conflicting data.
So that's the "other side." Ignorance and lies.
Microevolution: Noun: Evolutionary change over a short period.evilneko said:
Macroevolution: Noun: Major evolutionary change.
Evolution: Noun: The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
The Theory of Evolution states that as animals reproduce, there are chances for the DNA sequences as they split and reform to randomly develop a mutation. That mutation can be darkened skin from birth, fur on the skin, scales, gills, milk giving breasts, ect.
Mutation: Noun: a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.
Microevolution is a recorded event that is shown in different breeds of dogs, horses, cats, birds, flowers, ect. When done by man, the animals are breed in such a way that they lose undesired features such as weak sense of smells, low intelligence, long tails, short fur, ect. In order to create a better appealing animal. In the wild, the changes are often minor relating towards camouflage and climate change often. Such as seen with the grey wolf and the white wolf. Similar in most aspects besides fur color and thickness.
Macroevolution is a nonrecorded(as in no one breed one species into a new species with reproductive abilities) theory that animals can gather enough mutations and completely change their species. Such as a reptile becoming warm blooded, growing feathers, hollow bones, a taste for seeds and insects and becoming a bird. Most signs of this type of evolution come from broken, scattered bones from long gone animals.
Am I missing anything so far?
Good thing Hovint wasn't under oath during his "lecture", then, eh?monfang said:
If someone offers you the convenience of a video, please at least watch it. It is less than five minutes long and the guy doesn't talk like someone who wants to sell an absurd idea and is afraid that if he slows down, people might start thinking about what he said, contrary to Hovint.
Had you watched the video, you would know that what he says does not in the least bit disprove evolution.
Since you apparently are unable to take precious five minutes of your time to watch the video, let me summarise it for you:
Humans have two less chromosomes than other primates. He brought up the theory that two of each haploid set got fused at some point after the heritage of humans and other primates split, and unless evidence for such a fusion is found, this will be a fundamental flaw in evolution theory. It was found that human chromosome #2 has telomere sequences in the middle of its strands. This is a certain sign that it consists of two chromosomes which were fused at some point during their replication and remained that way in the following generations. This proves that two chromosomes of each haploid set were fused. This fusion explains why humans have two chromosomes less than other primates. So evolution theory is still valid.
To add to what BrassButtons said, Creationism deserves no serious consideration. Not because it presumes Christianity is true (seriously, the overwhelming majority of Creationists are Christians and the movement is intimately tied to Christianity), but because Creationists fail to provide any testable ideas. They can't provide them: they don't propose a mechanism. Creationism, boiled down, argues that someone, somewhere, somehow, made life. Until you can provide the who, the where, and the how, you do not, in any real sense, have a valid theory. All you have is mere speculation, and at best a lot of datapoints.
The argument that we need to examine Creationism is nothing more than a demand for special treatment. There are ample examples in Earth Science of an idea being discarded, properly, for not having sufficient supporting evidence or for failing to provide an adequate mechanism. In many cases, the discarded idea was later proven to be correct--but only AFTER the mechanism and evidence were provided. Until then, scientists CANNOT, in good conscience, accept the idea as true--there's not enough support.
There are rules to this game we call science. Creationism violates more or less all of them. They DO NOT present their ideas in peer-reviewed journals, they DO NOT present them in academic conferences, they DO NOT present them to people who actually understand the issues involved. Instead, they attempt to force their ideas onto children too young to understand the data presented to them, under the guise of fairness. They attempt to use the courts to force us to accept their ideas. They hijack religion (every theist who's not a Creationist should be deeply offended by what these people are doing in the name of their gods). In short, Creationism behaves like a social movement, not a scientific theory. And it should be treated as such: by keeping it out of science classrooms.
The argument that we need to examine Creationism is nothing more than a demand for special treatment. There are ample examples in Earth Science of an idea being discarded, properly, for not having sufficient supporting evidence or for failing to provide an adequate mechanism. In many cases, the discarded idea was later proven to be correct--but only AFTER the mechanism and evidence were provided. Until then, scientists CANNOT, in good conscience, accept the idea as true--there's not enough support.
There are rules to this game we call science. Creationism violates more or less all of them. They DO NOT present their ideas in peer-reviewed journals, they DO NOT present them in academic conferences, they DO NOT present them to people who actually understand the issues involved. Instead, they attempt to force their ideas onto children too young to understand the data presented to them, under the guise of fairness. They attempt to use the courts to force us to accept their ideas. They hijack religion (every theist who's not a Creationist should be deeply offended by what these people are doing in the name of their gods). In short, Creationism behaves like a social movement, not a scientific theory. And it should be treated as such: by keeping it out of science classrooms.
I was going to be kinder than this, but...monfang said:
Absolute. Bullshit.
Cholera is deadly because it secretes a toxin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholera_toxin] that messes with your electrolytes, basically dehydrating you to death. Amino acid chirality doesn't enter into it.
Also:
Oh, hey, look at this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda#Classification]:monfang said:
(And before you start complaining about Wikipedia, that's sourced from an article in Nature called "The sequence and de novo assembly of the giant panda genome.")
Seriously, I'm not even a biochemist or zoologist, and this stuff took me about five minutes to find. Research these things, would you?