Evolution and Religion

[Anonymouse]

By the way folks it should be mentioned that creationists or rather creationism is oftened equated as being unscientific. It should be noted that evolution itself is unscientific. No worldviews on human origins, be they creation nor evolution are scientific. Science means knowledge and that would imply that we actually know something concerning what we are dealing with. The very essence of the scientific method would be reproducibility, and since no one was alive to observe evolution, nor can we today repeat the evolutionary history, evolutionary theory is beyond the bosom of the scientific method.

[loseyourname]

If that were true, then atomic theory would be unscientific, given that we can't observe atoms or their constituent particles. Relativity would be unscientific, given that we can't observe space or time. Any scientific hypothesis mearly has to make testable predictions. Evolution makes many of these, and they are all confirmed.

Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about. Any person reading through this thread can see repeated instances of you lying and me exposing it. They will also see that you have failed to ever address one single piece of evidence I have presented for you, whereas I have refuted every single piece of evidence you offered up. I think it is safe to say who has the stronger case.

[Anonymouse]

Mousy, I just explained this. Nothing ever changes an amino acid. When you change a nucleotide (which is what a mutation is), you have a one in three chance that the mutation will result in a different amino acid being expressed. This is because for most amino acids there exist three different codons that all encode for that one acid. If you get a different amino acid, there is still a good chance that no change in protein function will result, because there are really only four different types of amino acids (there are 20 different molecules, but only 4 different behaviors). This means you only have a one in five chance that a different amino acid being expressed will result in a different protein conformation. Multiply these together, and any mutation only has a one in fifteen chance of actually affecting the function of a protein. This means that that 94% of all mutations have no effect whatsoever.

No natural process ruins nucleotides. When a mutation takes place, it is because of a replication error that results in a different nucleotide being placed on the copy DNA molecule from what was on the original. This results in a different sequence, which, as I've explained above, will have no effect 94% of the time.

I find it amusing that most evolutionists used to argue that mutations were positive, but now it's been tamed down to having no effect, equivalent of being neutral. That the millions of nucleotides are arranged in a specific sequence, is a fact. There is a specific sequence for everything, the eye, the nose, etc. It is mathematically improbable, as I.L. Cohen in Darwin Was Wrong has shown, because we are dealing with too great of a number. Millions of nucleotides cannot rearrange from one specific sequence, and change into another without a miracle. Mutations stem from random copying errors, and to suppose that from these errors the random event can reconstruct even a single complex organ like the pancreas or the kidney is unfounded, and guess again, improbable, and we've only covered this so much.

Do you even know anything about genetic drift? Genetic drift is the reason Armenians tend to have larger eyes than Native Americans. All it means that bottlenecked populations will pass on alleles in different frequencies (the frequency of the alleles responsible for larger eyes are more prevalent in the Armenian population than in the Native American population). Arguing against this principle is sheer idiocy. It is the way we breed animals and plants for food consumption and for pets. It is the basis for genetic variation. You can't argue that it doesn't take place. It is very easily observed.

Is this your hang up or the only thing you can flaunt as some sort of vague proof of evolution? This doesn't mean anything, any more than microevolution does.

[Anonymouse]

If that were true, then atomic theory would be unscientific, given that we can't observe atoms or their constituent particles. Relativity would be unscientific, given that we can't observe space or time. Any scientific hypothesis mearly has to make testable predictions. Evolution makes many of these, and they are all confirmed.

Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about. Any person reading through this thread can see repeated instances of you lying and me exposing it. They will also see that you have failed to ever address one single piece of evidence I have presented for you, whereas I have refuted every single piece of evidence you offered up. I think it is safe to say who has the stronger case.

That is a faulty analogy. Ever heard of the scanning-tunneling microscopes and atomic-force microscopes which can see individual atoms? You're analogy is faulty, and ironically the same person that told me to not resort to character attacks is now resorting to the same things. And I think what you meant to say was "I think it is safe to say that I have the stronger case", not "who has the stronger case".

[loseyourname]

I find it amusing that most evolutionists used to argue that mutations were positive, but now it's been tamed down to having no effect, equivalent of being neutral. That the millions of nucleotides are arranged in a specific sequence, is a fact. There is a specific sequence for everything, the eye, the nose, etc. It is mathematically improbable, as I.L. Cohen in Darwin Was Wrong has shown, because we are dealing with too great of a number. Millions of nucleotides cannot rearrange from one specific sequence, and change into another without a miracle. Mutations stem from random copying errors, and to suppose that from these errors the random event can reconstruct even a single complex organ like the pancreas or the kidney is unfounded, and guess again, improbable, and we've only covered this so much.

I don't even know where to begin with this one. I've told you before that yes, the chance of anyone sequence arising in a single step is astronomically small. Nobody argues that this has ever happened. The theory says that very small changes build upon each other. The chance of one mutation taking place and catching on is not nearly so small, and given that DNA is replicated millions of times by millions of individual organism each day, there are plenty of opportunities for this to happen. It is observed all the time in the lab. Microbial lifeforms are constantly evolving resistance to drugs. You put them in a new environment and they'll seemingly adapt to it instantly, due to nothing more than advantageous mutations. You have absolutely no argument here. But if you still feel the need to go on about this, by all means, post more calculations, and I will show why those ones are wrong too. We can do for the rest of our respective lives. I guarantee you that you will never post one single piece of evidence that I can't refute, whereas you will not even address any of mine.

Is this your hang up or the only thing you can flaunt as some sort of vague proof of evolution? This doesn't mean anything, any more than microevolution does.

I'm hung up on the fact that you keep lying. What you said was wrong. This is the not the only instance of that.

That is a faulty analogy. Ever heard of the scanning-tunneling microscopes and atomic-force microscopes which can see individual atoms? You're analogy is faulty, and ironically the same person that told me to not resort to character attacks is now resorting to the same things. And I think what you meant to say was "I think it is safe to say that I have the stronger case", not "who has the stronger case".

Atomic theory holds that atoms are made up of protons and electrons and neutrons, and yet no one has ever seen any of these particles. In fact, given that the best device we have is the electron microscope, it is not even theoretically possible to see an electron. If what you said about evolutionary theory were true, then atomic theory would be inscientific. There is no flaw in the analogy. Same holds for relativity. Nobody has ever observed space or time, and yet we hold that they are curved and that gravity comes from this curvature.

I meant to say what I said. Had I worded it the way you did, it would only have removed the nuance. It still says the same thing. I shouldn't even say that I have the stronger case, though. I have a case, period. You have nothing.

[spiral]

apparently there's a disorder- the complete opposite of ADD.

[Anonymouse]

I don't even know where to begin with this one. I've told you before that yes, the chance of anyone sequence arising in a single step is astronomically small. Nobody argues that this has ever happened. The theory says that very small changes build upon each other. The chance of one mutation taking place and catching on is not nearly so small, and given that DNA is replicated millions of times by millions of individual organism each day, there are plenty of opportunities for this to happen. It is observed all the time in the lab. Microbial lifeforms are constantly evolving resistance to drugs. You put them in a new environment and they'll seemingly adapt to it instantly, due to nothing more than advantageous mutations. You have absolutely no argument here. But if you still feel the need to go on about this, by all means, post more calculations, and I will show why those ones are wrong too. We can do for the rest of our respective lives. I guarantee you that you will never post one single piece of evidence that I can't refute, whereas you will not even address any of mine.

This is Alice in Wonderland all over again. We go back to the same tautological statements that got us here. The chance of anything of the millions of mutations, be they nucleotides or otherwise, causing the changes that we see are infinitismally small, to the point where they are so small there is no need to even mention them. It is improbable, given the amount versus the time it would take. Your whole argument is that all these micromutations, if accumulated are exactly that which account for these changes. The problem with that is that it is simply stated, ignoring the mathematical improbability to the contrary. It is shifted to the argument of how microbial lifeforms are constantly "evolving" resistance to drugs and this is used as a vague proof for evolution. I have already explained the ramifications of semantics involved. Changes that are so small, adaptation, or micromutations mean "evolution", macromutations mean "evolution", so there is virtually no way one can disagree with evolution, since evolution is anything and everything from the bggest to the smallest, and so the semantic implications are that evolution is a giant single process and to disagree would be foolish. That is, however, untrue. Adaptation is not macromutation, it is a micromutation and usually it goes both ways, as in the case with moths. There is no need to believe that micromutations lead to macromutations ( other than assuming it does ), any more than there is a need to believe in God.

I'm hung up on the fact that you keep lying. What you said was wrong. This is the not the only instance of that.

When did I lie? I could say the same about you. You are lying. What you said was wrong. This is the not the only instance of that.

Atomic theory holds that atoms are made up of protons and electrons and neutrons, and yet no one has ever seen any of these particles. In fact, given that the best device we have is the electron microscope, it is not even theoretically possible to see an electron. If what you said about evolutionary theory were true, then atomic theory would be inscientific. There is no flaw in the analogy. Same holds for relativity. Nobody has ever observed space or time, and yet we hold that they are curved and that gravity comes from this curvature.

My contention was that the atom was observed. As far as what makes up the atom, it is a theory, no more than relativity is a theory, no more than how we came to be is a theory. Do you not understand the difference between a scientific law and a theory? Is this your best attempt at trying to have a case for upholding eovlution, by making spurious analogies that don't mean anything? The history of science is a process of finding descriptive models of the nature around us and with each epoch they change (i.e. from Newtonian physics to Modern Physics ). It is to the point that we delude ourselves into thinking that we are very clever to have been able to figure out how nature really works. We will even go so far as to imagine that we have achieved understanding of the world around us. But on a more serious reflection we realize that all we did was add another name or another word or another guess in the form of a theory. Scientists speak of energy, momentum, wave functions as if they were on the same status as objects of everyday experience such as rocks, trees and water. There is a difference between real and invented concepts. A hypothetical change of a scientific model may do away with some concept such as a black hole as a conceptual entity, but it can't absolve a lake or a canyon. The idea that we can find absolute truths is naive and arrogant. If there are any underlying "truths", our models are just pale approximations of them.

I meant to say what I said. Had I worded it the way you did, it would only have removed the nuance. It still says the same thing. I shouldn't even say that I have the stronger case, though. I have a case, period. You have nothing.

Yes, you have a case, but not a valid one.

[loseyourname]

If you are going to claim that you aren't lying, go back and refute anything I posted. All you do is dismiss it.

I've repeatedly shown why the probability calculations you've posted are wrong, and you keep posting them anyway. Why is that? Are you honestly that lacking in evolutionary and mathematical knowledge that when I spell something out in front of your face you still can't see it?

I'm not going to sit around here and just argue with you. Either post something (and not the same damn thing I've refuted 30 times already) or stay out. I'll be back with more shortly.

[Anonymouse]

If you are going to claim that you aren't lying, go back and refute anything I posted. All you do is dismiss it.

I've repeatedly shown why the probability calculations you've posted are wrong, and you keep posting them anyway. Why is that? Are you honestly that lacking in evolutionary and mathematical knowledge that when I spell something out in front of your face you still can't see it?

I'm not going to sit around here and just argue with you. Either post something (and not the same damn thing I've refuted 30 times already) or stay out. I'll be back with more shortly.

This is pointless drivel nothing to do with the discussion. Thus I will ignore it.

[spookyghost]

*slaps her forehead and walks out of the thread*