Evolution is a joke pt XI

Some people wouldn't believe evolution if they were on Earth at the start of time until now. But they do believe in magic.

 

? What 'new life forms'? How far back in the past? How do you confirm your dating methods? Circular reasoning? No, i'm not buying it. I am a skeptic, & don't fall for this kind of make believe pseudo science. Perhaps we will know some day, but now all we have is speculation & faith. I'm content with it being a mystery. I don't have to know all the mysteries of the universe to function, nor does my world view need to be neatly tied up.

 

Let me translate: I would rather remain ignorant, thank you ver much.

 

You want to take on my points, & rebut them if you can? Or do you just talk big & try to bluff your way through a debate?

 

What points? Are you saying Evolution is not true? That is what I got out of Post #502

 

I just saw this:

So yes you do not think Evolution is the truth.

But right off the bat, you are arguing from a position of ignorance. Evolution does not deal with the origins of life. Evolution only deals with how life changes and evolves once life has started.

Abiogenesis deals with how life forms from inert matter (A.K.A., how chemistry becomes biology).

Here is a video on Abiogenesis:

[video=youtube;U6QYDdgP9eg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/video]

 

wow.. science fiction. i've seen all that before, though.

 

You want try and debate Abiogenesis, & refute it, if you can? Or do you just talk big & try to bluff your way through a debate?

 

I posted my arguments.. they're not particularly scientific, nor did i post a youtube video, but i don't see your claims of abiogenesis as valid, nor proven, scientific fact.

That is just more mumbo jumbo.. speculative fantasy, based on conjecture & faith. Not repeatable, provable science.

I'm sticking with my points.

 

You are arguing from a point of ignorance right from the beginning with "Does evolution provide a scientific & logical explanation for the origins". Evolution does not deal with the origins of life period. How can someone debate someone else when the other person starts from a point of ignorance? Simply put, you can't!

Here are 5 articles:

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory
American scientist who created artificial life denies 'playing God'
Building block of life found on comet
Found: A Batch of DNA Molecules That Seem To Have Originated in Space
Miller–Urey experiment See "Recent related studies"

We find the elements for life plentiful in the universe, scientists have recreated the first sparks of life, 50 years after the Miller–Urey experiment, vials of the same “goo” was found to have produced 20 more proteins than when the experiment was first done. I will say that the evidence for Abiogenesis is not iron-clad, like for Evolution , but to say that Abiogenesis is “ mumbo jumbo.. speculative fantasy” simply shows an ignorance of what Abiogenesis is and the evidence for Abiogenesis.

 

It's ok. People often get upset when their religious views are challenged. I don't mean it personally. I just don't have any respect for speculative fantasy masquerading as science. All of your abiogenesis is indeed 'mumbo jumbo'. It is not repeatable, peer reviewed, observable science. It has not shown or defined a mechanism for increasing complexity of life, or spontaneously starting life. It is your belief, but it is not based on science.

I'm not getting drawn into a debate over micro evolution. I already know it is true. It is observable, repeatable, & is the basis for hybridization & genetic research. But you cannot make me take the leap from adaptation to increasing complexity & new life forms. Adaptation does not do that. So all you are left with is a belief system of faith. You believe it to be true, but there is no scientific basis for it. That's ok. Lots of people have those kinds of beliefs.

 

In bold, you clearly have ZERO idea what Abiogeneis is.

Perhaps you should read up on Dr. Jack Szostak and what he has accomplished in Abiogensis, before saying "It is not repeatable, peer reviewed, observable science"

 

You are totally perverting the tenets espoused in the UofB link. The UofB website does not explicitly or even implicitly corroborate you belief that evolution does not constitute a scientific theory. Please quote the UoB text that explicitly states that evolution has not been observed and there is no information on how mutations could develop complexity.

Sure there are slight variations in the genetic code. These slight variations on the standard code had actually been predicted and are totally congruent with evolutionary theory. Ultimately, all known naturally-occurring codes are very similar to each other, and the coding mechanism is the same for all organisms: three-base codons, tRNA, ribosomes, reading the code in the same direction and translating the code three letters at a time into sequences of amino acids.

As for the article I linked as an example of a beneficial mutation... I would suggest you reread the article as you are either purposely lying about its context or you did not read it. I have bolded the references to the mutation in the text. Where exactly does it say its not a mutation???

Here is the complete article:

May 12, 2004

There may be. There are many stories where someone who was in constant contact with plague victims didn't die. Maybe genetics is the explanation.

For example, in 1665, the plague hit a small village in England called Eyam. The town quarantined itself to keep the Black Death from spreading into the rest of the country. A year later, the plague had burnt itself out but half of the townspeople were dead. Was there something special about the half that lived?

In 1996, researchers tracked down descendants of the people of Eyam and looked for any mutations they might have in common to explain this high survival rate. What they found was a mutation called CCR5-delta 32.

The CCR5-delta 32 mutation was already known for a different reason -- people with one copy of the CCR5-delta 32 mutation are resistant to HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. People with 2 copies are virtually immune to HIV. The CCR5-delta 32 mutation probably arose a few thousand years ago in Northeastern Europe. It stayed rare until around 700 years ago when it suddenly became more common. The plague started in Europe around 700 years ago.

So, does CCR5-delta 32 protect people from the plague bacteria? Probably not. Mice infected with the plague bacteria died at around the same rates whether or not they had the CCR5-delta 32 mutation.

Why then is this mutation so common in Europeans and even more common in people whose ancestors came from Eyam?

Maybe smallpox is the reason. Smallpox killed 3 in 10 infected people for thousands of years in Europe. Recent studies suggest that smallpox, like HIV, can't infect someone with the CCR5-delta 32 mutation.

Of course this doesn't explain Eyam (unless there was a lot of smallpox in the area). A more controversial theory is that an unknown virus, not the plague bacteria, caused the Black Death. Besides the evidence of the CCR5-delta 32 mutation itself, some people contend that the disease shouldn't have been stopped by quarantine and that it spread too quickly for a flea borne illness. Anyway, as you can see, while genetics were probably involved, there isn't yet a solid answer as to what genes were involved.


"And the evidence of DNA not liking to be changed and if we do, horrible things happens is the evidence that states it can’t happen in nature." Is that a sentence??? What does that even mean??? You don't really believe that DNA doesn't change in nature? Do you have any evidence of that??

 

The only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is quantitative- micro-evolution may occur over a few generation while macro-evolution may occur over thousands of generations. Microevolution are both qualatatitatively equal as both are primarily caused by mutation, genetic drift, selection and gene-flow. Macro-evolution can be seen as the sum of long periods of microevolution, and thus the two are qualitatively identical while being quantitatively different.

the growth of complexity may be driven by the co-evolution between an organism and the ecosystem of predators, prey and parasites to which it tries to stay adapted: as any of these become more complex in order to cope better with the diversity of threats offered by the ecosystem formed by the others, the others too will have to adapt by becoming more complex, thus triggering an on-going evolutionary arms race towards more complexity. Complexity also may arise in the co-evolution of hosts and pathogens, with each side developing ever more sophisticated adaptations, such as the immune system and the many techniques pathogens have developed to evade it. For example, the parasite Trypanosoma brucei, which causes sleeping sickness, has evolved so many copies of its major surface antigen that about 10% of its genome is devoted to different versions of this one gene. This tremendous complexity allows the parasite to constantly change its surface and thus evade the immune system through antigenic variation.

There is no conflict between the second law of thermodynamics and the ToE, Just because there is an increase in complexity in certain systems does not mean that their is a net increase in complexity. According to your reasoning, it would be impossible for an air-conditioner to cool a room. Additionally, how do you reconcile the fossil record in the context of your opinions on thermodynamics.

The ToE does not address how life came into existence on our planet. In essence, the ToE hold shares a common ancestor. the validity of the Abiogenesis hypothesis has no bearing on the ToE.

 

To expand on this a bit, entropy is applied to closed systems. Since the Earth receives energy from the Sun, the Earth - Sun relationship is a OPEN system.

 

Typical. If you don't have any arguments or reason, resort to dismissal.

All you have done is post links with other people's arguments supporting their belief system. I could do that, but instead, i posted my own reasoning, for a discussion. I could look up some links for some new age alien seeding theories, or there are plenty of creationist sites, with lots of articles & data. You post some vague articles, that you believe strongly in, no doubt, & expect them to corroborate your assertions. But the simple fact is that abiogenesis is a hoax.. at least if you're attempting to demonstrate how life can begin spontaneously, or if you're trying to use it as a mechanism for increasing complexity.

You might want to change your sig line.

 

I completely disagree. 'Micro' is simply the observable science of adaptation & genetics. It is repeatable, observable, & proven. It is logical & supported by historical & current observation.

'Macro', otoh, is an extrapolation, with no supporting data. It is not observable, nor is there any mechanism to explain it. My arguments above summarized this. The entire universe is open, but entropy is still in force. You cannot explain how sunlight creates life. Yes, it feeds life, but it cannot increase genetic complexity, or generate life spontaneously, as you suggest. THAT is a leap of faith, not logical, scientific reasoning.

Maybe. Or maybe aliens seeded something. Or maybe a creator made things. You are using conjecture to support your arguments.

Of course there is. Macro evolution hinges on some mechanism overriding entropy. Define it. Test it. Observe it. You cannot. It is a belief you have, that there is a mysterious force at work causing increasing complexity in life forms, but you don't know what it is.

The actual process of adaptation is a narrowing of the genetic code. Fewer & fewer brown rabbits are born in snowy regions, because the white ones hide better & survive predators. Adaptation is making fewer options available to the genetic code. Scientists, breeders, & farmers use that narrowing of the genetic code to create strains in genetic research. They depend on the high walls of the science of genetics to make their research possible. This is in direct conflict with your macro theory, where increasing complexity is happening. You should not be able to narrow the genetic code, because it would always be jumping to new complex levels. But that is not what happens, so you are left with a speculative belief system. A leap of faith, using faulty reasoning & bad science to prove something that is in direct conflict with the mechanism you claim that does it.

Any discussion of origins or increasing complexity of life always has the macro theory of evolution in it's core. Any discussion of evolution has abiogenesis tossed about. I did not bring it up. I consider it a speculative, unproven mechanism that has no validity. IF you could really get abiogenesis to work.. if you could really create life & see it increase in complexity, then there would be some credibility for it. But there are no facts to back the speculations. It is hopeful conjecture, not science.

 

If you are not willing to learn, why are you here?

You have not refuted anything on Abiogenesis, any links I have posted, just sat here and danced around them with ridiculous nonsense like saying Abiogenesis is a belief.

You say Abiogenesis is a hoax, yet you have nothing to back up your silly assertion.

Here, here is an article on scientists see single cell yeast EVOLVE into multicellular yeast:

Multicellular Life Evolves in Laboratory

I know, you'll just dance around this one too.

 

Posting a link is not an argument. It is not reason, but an appeal to an outside, 'expert' source. If you have any reasoning of your own, put them up. Otherwise, i have nothing to rebut or counter. I am not going to debate a link.

 

it is obvious you not here to learn or deabte, you are here just to troll.

 

Thread is over 500 posts. Feel free to start another.

Shangrila
Site Moderator