Quote :

"Listen, I respect you okay. But I'm not the one going too deep into this and yes I have a very sound understanding of what evolution is."

You actually haven't proven that at all - you aren't keeping things simple you're just rambling nonsense.

Quote :

"After the big bang, you have molecuels floating around yada yada. Then they somehow evolve into multi celled organisms that just freakishly start creating new gene information OUT OF THE BLUE and going into different directions, branching off."

Big Bang was the most likely origin of the Universe yes, but it took a considerable amount of time (in fact the majority of existence since this moment) for the 'molecuels' to cool down and coalesce into the forms recognizable as our Sun and Solar System. There is as of now no general consensus as to how any of the first lifeforms came to be, whether it was an act of God or lightning in a primordial amino acid soup or whatever so you're jumping ahead a couple million steps to multi-cellular organisms. Actually environmental reasons were the primary reason for initial mutations, most likely due to high energy UV light damaging DNA. These mutations could go either way, become a beneficial change for the organism to overcome an obstacle or perhaps go the other way and give it an handicap. These genes are passed to its offspring and according to natural selection they compete against similarly mutated organisms and well....the better suited are generally going to win when competing for limited resources.

Quote :

"Then over the course of a couple million years, despite all the nearly earth rendering catastrophes that would reset our atomic clocks countless times, we still find some how to evolve during a period of peace on earth?!?! "

What? I can't even interpret what that is supposed to mean. What do you mean by 'reset atomic clock'?
Are you somehow trying to say that Noah's flood cause radioisotope dating to provide grossly incorrect results?
I think you somehow interpret evolution as being an process initiated by disaster - really...evolution is an accident.

12/20/2009 12:58:11 PM

^^^ Maybe those arguments would make sense if you made certain assumptions, such as; "genes" are a class of designed information that can only come about by someone designing them.

Then you start arguing that interesting forms of complex order and life itself can't come from a casual system at all. The issue seems to be the concept of abiogenesis itself. It is, admittedly, very unlikely.

That has something to do with the fact that there are over sextillion stars in the universe.

---
I'm more interested in how you would explain the genesis of the universe itself. I think that, and the matter of consciousness itself, (I think therefore I am) are the only true conundrums in existence. Does it really matter that it seems somewhat implausible for one state of randomly distributed Hydrogen atoms to eventually form complex life? I mean really, isn't the idea that those randomly distributed Hydrogen atoms were present in the first place more non-nonsensical? Or space itself for that matter.

You're not buying anything in explanatory value by doubting a complicated natural process on the basis that it's complicated.

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 1:00 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2009 12:59:52 PM

Quote :

"Yes, you know of this process on a daily basis. How do you think babby is formed? It’s not magic that’s happening in a mother’s womb, it’s molecules seeking meta-stable energy states determined by the DNA made up of those peptides that form readily in certain chemical conditions."

I like what you did in this one. This was a cutie. But babies don't CREATE NEW GENETIC INFORMATION. They use what they've already been given from the time of conception, and grow.

Now if this baby grew a new appendage, like a sword arm to attack prey then you would have a point. And that's what evolution sais. Over and over again.



[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 1:05 PM. Reason : /]

12/20/2009 1:01:53 PM

You still have several problems:

1) Evolution is a natural process. It does not have goals. It does not address a need. It doesn't happen for "a reason". There is no "why". Evolution is not a conscious process.

2) "[E]arth rendering catastrophes that would reset our atomic clocks". You still haven't explained what any of these are or how they function. Also, I don't think "rendering" is the word you're looking for.

3) Several methods of genetic variation have been discussed in this thread, yet you still insist thing are happening "out of the blue."

4) Do you have a better idea for how things came to be?

----

Quote :

"Now if this baby grew a new appendage, like a sword arm to attack prey then you would have a point. And that's what evolution sais. Over and over again."

No, it doesn't. In fact, that statement really makes me question your previous statement that "I have a very sound understanding of what evolution is."

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 1:06 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2009 1:02:53 PM

Quote :

"But babies don't CREATE NEW GENETIC INFORMATION. They use what they've already been given from the time of conception, and grow."

Babies (or embryo creation to be more specific) do create new genetic information.

I just want to be clear about that.

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 1:05 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2009 1:05:24 PM

Quote :

"I like what you did in this one. This was a cutie. But babies don't CREATE NEW GENETIC INFORMATION. They use what they've already been given from the time of conception, and grow. Now if this baby grew a new appendage, like a sword arm then you would have a point. "

Why does the baby have to grow a sword arm?

Why is it that you look different than either of your parents? How did this “NEW INFORMATION” get there? And you don’t see how even the minimal process of ordinary gene drift over a million years wouldn’t lead to new ways of proteins being expressed?

12/20/2009 1:06:17 PM

Quote :

"Why is it that you look different than either of your parents? How did this “NEW INFORMATION” get there? And you don’t see how even the minimal process of ordinary gene drift over a million years wouldn’t lead to new ways of proteins being expressed?"

That's poor wording. The relevant question would be "how do identical twins have any variation?" Sexual reproduction assures we will express traits differently from our parents, and sometimes, even recessive traits no one saw before.

The real new stuff is too subtle to be seen normally.

12/20/2009 1:08:29 PM

Quote :

"At this point, you have 1 of 2 real choices. You can accept that the Creation story in the Bible is not meant to be taken literally, and is clearly a figurative story meant to illuminate more the will of God than any specific practice. Or accept that you are a religious zealot that will naively cling to a Young Earth Creation theory regardless of any rational or scientific explanation that clearly shows otherwise."

[/thread]

Quote :

"molecuels "

Quote :

"Then they somehow evolve into multi celled organisms that just freakishly start creating new gene information OUT OF THE BLUE and going into different directions"

I think you lack an understanding of time scale for this one. Molecules that formed the first life on earth did not appear until almost 9 billion years after the theorized date
of the big bang.

Quote :

"It’s not magic that’s happening in a mother’s womb,"

I thought the stork places the baby in a mommy's tummy after she gets married to a boy

12/20/2009 1:09:34 PM

Quote :

"1) Evolution is a natural process. It does not have goals. It does not address a need. It doesn't happen for "a reason". There is no "why". Evolution is not a conscious process."

Yet, with all your science you can't prove that it is still happening. Do you believe in causality?

Quote :

"2) "[E]arth rendering catastrophes that would reset our atomic clocks". You still haven't explained what any of these are or how they function. Also, I don't think "rendering" is the word you're looking for."

Comets never hit our earth?

Quote :

"3) Several methods of genetic variation have been discussed in this thread, yet you still insist thing are happening "out of the blue.""

Not sound.

Quote :

"4) Do you have a better idea for how things came to be?"

Ofcourse I do.

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 1:11 PM. Reason : /]

12/20/2009 1:10:04 PM

Yes, we can prove that evolution is still occurring.

How do comets impacting the Earth "reset our atomic clocks"?

WHY is it not sound? You can't just say "No". That's not how a discussion works.

If you have better ideas, please enlighten us.

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 1:18 PM. Reason : ']

12/20/2009 1:13:30 PM

How can we prove it?

12/20/2009 1:14:25 PM

Quote :

"Yet, with all your science you can't prove that it is still happening."

Really? Really really? We've never observed evolution?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

12/20/2009 1:14:55 PM

Quote :

""1) Evolution is a natural process. It does not have goals. It does not address a need. It doesn't happen for "a reason". There is no "why". Evolution is not a conscious process." Yet, with all your science you can't prove that it is still happening. Do you believe in causality? "

haha, what?

Statistical genomics has proven that we are still evolving.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1931757,00.html
Darwin Lives! Modern Humans Are Still Evolving


[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 1:16 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2009 1:15:00 PM

Recent Science Friday podcast on evolution in birds:

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200912045

...and another about continuing evolution in humans:

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200910235

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 1:21 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2009 1:18:12 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Y-Haplogroups-1500AD-World-Map.png

Haplogroup mutations correspond with the migration patterns that help bolster the idea of evolution.

12/20/2009 1:35:40 PM

12/20/2009 2:12:00 PM

Evolution contradictory

Bible perfectly consistent

McDanger lollin'

12/20/2009 3:12:16 PM

3 pages? Really?

12/20/2009 3:24:54 PM

lol @ all you morons replying to the troll

12/20/2009 4:16:33 PM

First off, you guys say "evolution is for survival". Now you say that evolution just happens for no reason. As if there is no such thing as causality. Then its still happening and you can prove it. Well if that were the case, it wouldn't be a theory now, would it? I think It should be the Law of Evolution from what you scientist on here are saying.

Which one is it. Stop your dad-gom flip flopping!! Does evolution happen for a reason if so, what fuels it(adaptation, survival or just randomness)? What is the name of the mechanism that enables the creation of NEW genetic information that EVERY SPECIES IN THE WORLD HAS, not altered or mutated (not natural selection or genetic drift)? Is Evolution a theory or a Law?

Quote :

"Recent Science Friday podcast on evolution in birds: http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200912045 ...and another about continuing evolution in humans: http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200910235 "

Don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way, but those links are rubbish. Merely opinionated articles written by professors. I thought you were providing something more sound. There's simply not enough years to validate this research. Again, another play on time.

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 4:41 PM. Reason : /]

12/20/2009 4:21:16 PM

If you were a hotdog, wouldya eat yourself?

12/20/2009 4:27:06 PM

This guy is either no good at trolling, or isn't bright enough to engage in a conversation.

This thread has run out of fun.

12/20/2009 5:09:04 PM

If our lord Cheesus were made out of spare ribs, would ya eat him?

12/20/2009 5:09:27 PM

OH GOD YES!

12/20/2009 5:17:26 PM

HEYY! It's a simple question. Would you eat the moon if it were made of ribs?

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 5:20 PM. Reason : ,]

12/20/2009 5:20:33 PM

Thanks guys, for the discussion.

12/20/2009 5:24:18 PM

Did you honestly come here for a discussion?

You came here with a weak case built on a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution and refuse to consider any evidence that others bring.

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 5:32 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2009 5:27:54 PM

^^thanks for what? You completely disregarded everything posted in here.

12/20/2009 5:28:41 PM

Quote :

" What is the name of the mechanism that enables the creation of NEW genetic information"

evolution.

Quote :

"First off, you guys say "evolution is for survival”."

Who is saying this? Evolution is not “for” anything, this was said in practically the first post in this thread.

Quote :

"Then its still happening and you can prove it. Well if that were the case, it wouldn't be a theory now, would it? I think It should be the Law of Evolution from what you scientist on here are saying."

haha. No offense, but this is pure gibberish.

Quote :

"There's simply not enough years to validate this research."

You clearly did not read or understand any of the articles posted.

12/20/2009 5:35:13 PM

lets stop feeding this troll The E Man is obviously trolling or just is some crazy zealot who really does not deserve our effort and attention.

12/20/2009 7:56:17 PM

The E Man has officially broken the internet.

12/20/2009 8:01:51 PM

Evolution ignores causality. Fact.

^^ That's what they also called Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo ya know. Fact.

[Edited on December 20, 2009 at 9:13 PM. Reason : /]

12/20/2009 9:08:48 PM

this is some good shit, lol

12/20/2009 10:52:37 PM

everyone has been Earl'd

[Edited on December 21, 2009 at 12:05 AM. Reason : .]

12/21/2009 12:04:39 AM

6 thousand years ago on a cold windy day...

12/21/2009 9:57:23 AM

Quote :

"everyone has been Earl'd"

LOL at this thread and I am SO HAPPY EARL IS BACK WITH HIS FACTS.

12/21/2009 10:00:46 AM

I can tell from some of the pixels and seeing quite a few shops in my time

12/21/2009 12:05:38 PM

HEY GUYES LOOK I WANT YOU TO COME HERE AND LOOK AT MY BIG BANG AND EVOLUTION PROOF BOX. I EVEN BROUGHT THE VIDEO THAT PROVES THERE'S NO OTHER INTELLIGENT BEINGS OUT THERE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A PART OF OUR CREATION

CHECK IT OUT. I ALSO HAVE A PAMPHLET ABOUT DINOSAURS I WANT YOU TO SEE.

ha

12/21/2009 2:24:24 PM

http://www.wimp.com/knownuniverse/

Its mind-boggleling that our only footprint in the universe so far is a measly 140 lightyear diameter sphere which consist of past radio signals. Kinda makes you take a deep breath when considering what we dont know about the cosmos.

Quote :

"Does evolution happen for a reason if so, what fuels it(adaptation, survival or just randomness)? What is the name of the mechanism that enables the creation of NEW genetic information that EVERY SPECIES IN THE WORLD HAS, not altered or mutated (not natural selection or genetic drift)? Is Evolution a theory or a Law? "

Yes, to become more intelligent.
All of the above.
Procreation.
Theory.

12/21/2009 9:56:01 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saxX-Z6w3p4

12/22/2009 4:58:06 PM

^I think that idea of "telescoping evolution" will be negated by the fact that we'll all be dead by 40 from our lousy diets and dangerous habits(like riding in cars). And of course a little thing like a nuclear holocaust will set the clock right back to zero.

12/22/2009 6:14:45 PM

Quote :

"Mutations are the raw material of natural selection, providing changes that help all organisms adapt to new environments. In fact, a variety of experiments with bacteria show that strains with high rates of mutation can adapt more rapidly than their peers. But mutations can also knock out vital genes, which is why cells have many mechanisms intended to limit or repair changes in their DNA. So, how does it all balance out? New research suggests that, for E. coli, a rate of about 10 times normal provides a nice compromise. The researchers performed a systematic test of mutation rates, swapping out the bacteria's normal DNA Polymerase I gene (which handles repair and a portion of the normal DNA copying duties) for mutant versions that naturally produce higher and lower rates of mutation. All told, over 60 different mutant forms were tried, with the most potent mutator creating DNA changes at a rate 1,000,000 times higher than that of the the least mutation-prone. The engineered strains were then subjected to a bacterial version of Survivor, dumped in culture in various combinations for up to a month in order to see which ones were left alive. For the first week or so, normal strains actually outgrew the competition. But, after a few weeks, mutator strains began to pick up helpful adaptations, and quickly came to the fore. By 30 days, only 8 strains (out of 66 initially) survived in culture: all the wild type and low-mutation versions had been driven out by the competition. But so had the strains prone to the most mutations; instead, all the strains fell in a narrow range, with somewhere between three and 47 times the normal mutation rate, with most on the high end of that range. There seem to be three conclusions: under normal circumstances, like a stable environment, bacteria seem to have mutation rates that are conducive to good growth. But, change the conditions (shift the culture media—introduce competition—and higher rates of mutation become adaptive. But, even under those circumstances, there are limits, as the strains with the highest rates of mutation die out, too. "

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/12/balancing-rapid-evolution-and-high-mutation.ars

Only about bacteria, but an interesting study nonetheless.

12/29/2009 1:36:03 AM

Quote :

"Its mind-boggleling that our only footprint in the universe so far is a measly 140 lightyear diameter sphere which consist of past radio signals."

This old wives tale is pretty common amongst people who are unfamiliar with electrical forces. In fact, the strength of our radio signals decreases exponentially, so the signal is approximately zero by the time they leave our solar system - and they very quickly fade into the background radiation after that...

I mean, if you want to make the argument that throwing a rock off Jonny Mercer's pier creates a wave over in the UK, then I guess you can say that our footprint in the universe is 140 lightyears...

Quote :

"I think that idea of "telescoping evolution" will be negated by the fact that we'll all be dead by 40 from our lousy diets and dangerous habits(like riding in cars). And of course a little thing like a nuclear holocaust will set the clock right back to zero."

1 billion years from now, the insectoids that are descended from the sole remaining survivors of our nuclear holocaust (roaches of course), will create a message board. Upon this message board, one particularly dumb insectoid roach child will ask why all the creatures are immune to radiation poisoning... Wouldn't they have all died from radiation while they were still developing the resistance? The thread will carry on for a few months until the RAID holocaust is instigated by rogue roach terrorists, wiping out all insect life on earth and ushering in a new species of silicon based life forms. These will eventually develop intelligence and create a time machine which will transport one of them back to our own time - this one will be known to us as The Terminator

[Edited on December 29, 2009 at 4:30 AM. Reason : s]

12/29/2009 4:22:56 AM

Quote :

"This old wives tale is pretty common amongst people who are unfamiliar with electrical forces."

The point still stands. Whether Earth's radio signals are detectable or not, they are still limited by the short time we've been broadcasting them.

12/29/2009 10:00:54 AM

Quote :

"and they very quickly fade into the background radiation after that..."

Then how does radio astronomy work? Or are the signals being detected there millions of times stronger than our strongest signal?

12/29/2009 10:54:42 AM

The radio waves are technically still there and will continue to exist for a long time, but likely they're completely imperceptible.

12/29/2009 1:15:38 PM

Quote :

"Then how does radio astronomy work? Or are the signals being detected there millions of times stronger than our strongest signal?"

You mean where we detect radio signals from stars right? Not an antenna, but burning balls of gas on the scale of our sun. I think that a factor of million is significantly understating that difference.

12/29/2009 1:38:06 PM

This relates to the dumb argument earlier that thermodynamics says everything must only and always be disordered.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/12/simple-pyramids-create-complex-quasicrystals.ars
Entropy can drive the formation of complex quasicrystals

Quote :

"From a thermodynamics perspective, all systems, even the universe itself, are all driven by two aspects of their state—entropy and energy. Any closed system will simultaneously tend towards a minimum energy or maximum entropy state—open systems behave differently, but the idea is similar. Under a variety of conditions, these two states represent opposites: a system that has obtained the maximum possible entropy is often a high energy state; conversely, the low energy state may be a nicely ordered system with little disorder. It can be tough to study what entropy alone can do. In real world systems, energetic contributions—such as changes in chemical bonds—often dominate, preventing us from observing the beauty of what disorder alone can accomplish. To overcome the shackles of reality, researchers have employed molecular thermodynamic simulations to study hard systems—those that have no attractive forces, but do exhibit repulsion due to the shapes of individual particles. This allows researchers to study a system where the only available energy state is zero, and the thermodynamic properties are driven by entropic considerations alone."

12/31/2009 2:16:12 PM

http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/56271/

New clues to Y evolution

Quote :

"Chimp Y chromosomes may be more ornate in structure, but human Y chromosomes have a larger and more complex gene repertoire, the researchers found. They also have more protein-coding transcription units. Page attributes this rapid evolution of the Y chromosome to three characteristics: structure, susceptibility to natural selection, and genomic hitchhiking. More so than in other parts of the genome, the Y chromosome, specifically its ampliconic region, is amenable to structural manipulation. It is similar to old-fashioned "tinker toys," Page said, in which "the components are made to take apart and put back together very easily." Also, because the Y chromosome is responsible for sperm production, it can be greatly influenced by natural selection. Take, for example, the mating habits of chimpanzees, which are known to have polygamous relationships. When a female is ovulating, males attempt to mate with her in rapid succession, often creating sperm-sperm competition to fertilize the egg. In this scenario, the genetic information of the male with the strong sperm, essentially being the one with the best Y chromosomes, would be passed on. This lends itself to rapid evolution of the Y chromosome. Lastly, since the Y chromosome doesn't have a counterpoint to swap genes with during the reproductive process, the entire unit is affected when one gene is singled out by natural selection; the rest of the Y chromosome unit genetically hitchhikes on this one gene, evolving based on a single unique gene. "

This briefly mentions at least 3 different mechanisms of evolution used in this study.

[Edited on January 13, 2010 at 10:16 PM. Reason : ]

1/13/2010 10:15:53 PM

I'm gonna go ahead and set up page four of this stupid thread --------->

1/13/2010 10:34:57 PM