Page 28 of 34 FirstFirst ... 182324252627282930313233 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 560 of 675
  1.    #541  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Natural selection of course. Meaning those with beneficial mutations having more offspring, leading to beneficial mutation increasing in numbers. Early flagella were very primitive, based on totally basic ways of moving. Think of a protein simply able of opening and closing, thus moving liquid from one side to another, allowing only tiny movements. Gradually, that protein changed over time due to mutations which increased the ability to open and close, thus allowing more movement, thus allowing to get to places with more food, thus allowing the carriers of the mutations for more speed to increase in numbers at the expense of the slower ones. Other proteins, sometimes proteins useful for other purposes within the cells, attached to that protein, in some cases further increasing the ability to move, etc. Over millions and millions of years, meaning trillions of generations of bacteria later, something similar to a flagellum had evolved. It's really not that mysterious, certainly not as mysterious or unlikely as you would like it to be.
    I would then pose the question, what initiates these changes? Is it pure will? Does a creature conciously make a decision to change, or is it spontanious?
  2. #542  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    I would then pose the question, what initiates these changes? Is it pure will? Does a creature conciously make a decision to change, or is it spontanious?
    What do you think? Would you seriously consider "will" or "decision to change"? Why not look up "mutation" or "evolution" in www.encarta.com or www.wikipedia.com? If it is too much work for you: mutations are basically very rare and random errors occuring when DNA is copied.

    It has become more than obvious that you reject evolution without having the slightest clue about it, let alone knowing about the compelling scientific evidence for it. I suspect you know just as little about the numerous scientific methods of dating earth, i.e. nothing. I really don't think this is a basis for a discussion about "Evolution vs. Creation".
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. #543  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Now, back to my questions:
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Doesn't evolution rely on some assumptions about the origin of life, though? Doesn't the theory neccessitate there being a source that has certain characteristics?
    Just so, I'm clear, are the answers 'yes' and 'yes'?
    No, it does not. When predicting a ball will roll down a hill, does it really matter how it got to the top of the hill?

    Again, evolution speaks to what happens to a reproductive population under competitive pressure. It does not matter how the population gets there, and is always active.

    Edit: There are basic requirements:
    1) mutation of the genetic code passed on to offspring is allowed (in fact this is inevitable)
    2) there must be competition for resources.
    3) Access to resources must have an effect on reproductive fitness ie. how many offspring the subject has.

    Surur
  4.    #544  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    What do you think? Would you seriously consider "will" or "decision to change"? Why not look up "mutation" or "evolution" in www.encarta.com or www.wikipedia.com? If it is too much work for you: mutations are basically very rare and random errors occuring when DNA is copied.

    It has become more than obvious that you reject evolution without having the slightest clue about it, let alone knowing about the compelling scientific evidence for it. I suspect you know just as little about the numerous scientific methods of dating earth, i.e. nothing. I really don't think this is a basis for a discussion about "Evolution vs. Creation".
    How can something more complex occur from an "error"? Most "errors" in human DNA have a detrimental effect on the person with them.

    P.S. - Please imagine my statements coming across inquisitive, not belligerent or angry. I really want to know these things.
  5. #545  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Sorry to **** in, but I had a question concerning your commments which I have put in bold font.

    Has science explained yet the intricacies of a cell? Why there are so many things in a cell, and yet it is irreducibly complex? I am not trying to be belligerent. I recently watched a video put out by creationists, and one of the arguments they put forward was all of the irreducibly complex things within a living being.

    Another example they gave was a bacteria's flagellum. They interviewed a scientist who had studied the flagellum for 10 years, and he stated that the structure was so intricate that if even one part was gone or in the wrong place that the flagellum wouldn't work. He said that in his mind there was no way it could come about by chance.
    I think that my comment speaks for itself. That science has not yet explained something does not mean that it never will. Remember when we believed the atom to be atomic? We have seen all kinds of things in history that theists used as proof of the supernatural that science has subsequently explained.

    I do not suggest for a moment that the universe is not awesome and wondrous. However, I have seen little in that wonder that required anything outside it to account for it. Indeed, I believe that the universe, as science has revealed it, dwarfs the metaphors and stories that the theists take so much comfort in. Those metaphors and stories trivialize the real miracle of the universe.
  6. #546  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    How can something more complex occur from an "error"? Most "errors" in human DNA have a detrimental effect on the person with them.

    P.S. - Please imagine my statements coming across inquisitive, not belligerent or angry. I really want to know these things.
    Emphasis on most. If 1 in 1 000 000 germ-line mutations have a beneficial effect then there are 150 children with positive mutations born each year, who will pass on these positive mutations to their children. If the mutation is useful, and improves reproductive success the mutation will spread through the population over a few 100 years.

    Thats what evolution is all about.

    Surur
  7.    #547  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Emphasis on most. If 1 in 1 000 000 germ-line mutations have a beneficial effect then there are 150 children with positive mutations born each year, who will pass on these positive mutations to their children. If the mutation is useful, and improves reproductive success the mutation will spread through the population over a few 100 years.

    Thats what evolution is all about.

    Surur
    But these are just mutations dealing with antibodies, are they not? Are these the kind of mutations that can cause a species to change dramatically as proposed by evolutionists?
  8. #548  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    But these are just mutations dealing with antibodies, are they not? Are these the kind of mutations that can cause a species to change dramatically as proposed by evolutionists?
    As we discussed earlier in the thread, these small mutations can add up, especially when populations are separated.

    Re the mutations only being tiny and insignificant antibody changes, how do you think all the variety of dogs we have were created, if not from random mutations which were artificially selected.

    Using that concrete example, do you accept random mutations can lead to big changed in a creature, such as the difference between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua?

    Remember, until genetic engineering came along, all the vast majority (some were adopted from the wild) of the domesticated species we have adopted have their variations created from random mutations which the farmer found beneficial.

    Surur
  9. #549  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    .........It specifically precludes exisence of deity.
    No, but it does preclude the necessity for one.
  10. #550  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    How can something more complex occur from an "error"? Most "errors" in human DNA have a detrimental effect on the person with them...............
    Indeed some, perhaps many, have a detrimental effect; these are "selected against." Many have no effect at all. A few have an effect that is beneficial. It is these, that were "selected for" over cosmological time.

    I confess that it is confusing. As with Special Relativity, I myself only understand it well enough to appreciate it for a few minutes at a time. Then my mind goes mush and I have to sort it out all over again.
  11. #551  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Science does not claim to be able to explain everything. It merely claims that everything has a natural explanation.
    First thing you've said I disagree with, I think. I do not discount the possibility of a deity, which is why I'm agnostic rather than atheist ... cop-out, I know.

    I would simply reword your statement to say that science assumes each phenonmenon we observe has a natural explanation. If some day, a deity chooses to make Herself known to us, this would not invalidate any of the conclusions of science.
  12. #552  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    P.S. - Please imagine my statements coming across inquisitive, not belligerent or angry. I really want to know these things.
    While applauding your inquisitiveness, I find myself wishing for you to apply your scepticism and inquisitive zeal as much to the statements of creationism as you have done so far for the science of evolution.

    To me, it is clear you want creationism to be true. I suppose the problem is that atheists don't offer the prospect of an immortal soul and everlasting life.
  13. #553  
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickS View Post
    First thing you've said I disagree with, I think. I do not discount the possibility of a deity, which is why I'm agnostic rather than atheist ... cop-out, I know.

    I would simply reword your statement to say that science assumes each phenonmenon we observe has a natural explanation. If some day, a deity chooses to make Herself known to us, this would not invalidate any of the conclusions of science.
    I can live with that. (In fact, when I was transitioning from theist to deist to atheist, I went through agnosticism.)

    I wonder how she might do it. The agnostic says, "If there were a God, she would make miracles so that I would recognize her." I say, "If there were a God, she would reserve the definition of miracles to herself." She might say, "I create several hundred thousand babies a day. How miraculous is that? How miraculous is even one?" If the universe does not create awe and wonder, what would convince the agnostic.
  14.    #554  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I can live with that. (In fact, when I was transitioning from theist to deist to atheist, I went through agnosticism.)

    I wonder how she might do it. The agnostic says, "If there were a God, she would make miracles so that I would recognize her." I say, "If there were a God, she would reserve the definition of miracles to herself." She might say, "I create several hundred thousand babies a day. How miraculous is that? How miraculous is even one?" If the universe does not create awe and wonder, what would convince the agnostic.
    Okay, now I'm confused. What perspective are you saying this out of?
  15.    #555  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    Indeed some, perhaps many, have a detrimental effect; these are "selected against." Many have no effect at all. A few have an effect that is beneficial. It is these, that were "selected for" over cosmological time.

    I confess that it is confusing. As with Special Relativity, I myself only understand it well enough to appreciate it for a few minutes at a time. Then my mind goes mush and I have to sort it out all over again.
    So, in an atheist's viewpoint time is 'god'? It seems that most explanations boil down to "after billions of years this impossible thing is possible".
  16.    #556  
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickS View Post
    While applauding your inquisitiveness, I find myself wishing for you to apply your scepticism and inquisitive zeal as much to the statements of creationism as you have done so far for the science of evolution.

    To me, it is clear you want creationism to be true. I suppose the problem is that atheists don't offer the prospect of an immortal soul and everlasting life.
    In the past few pages I have answered many, many questions having to do with Biblical occurances and theology. I feel I should be able to ask my own questions as well, if that is okay.
  17. #557  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    I feel I should be able to ask my own questions as well, if that is okay.
    Of course it is okay, didn't mean to imply otherwise. In fact, the first words in my post were: "While applauding your inquisitiveness..."
  18. #558  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray View Post
    I wonder how she might do it. The agnostic says, "If there were a God, she would make miracles so that I would recognize her." I say, "If there were a God, she would reserve the definition of miracles to herself." She might say, "I create several hundred thousand babies a day. How miraculous is that? How miraculous is even one?" If the universe does not create awe and wonder, what would convince the agnostic.
    This echoes some of the sentiments from theists earlier in this thread, suggesting that atheists wouldn't believe even if miracles were performed. To me, this flies in the face of the idea of an omnipotent being. If God wanted me to believe, I'm sure She would have a way to get the job done.
  19. #559  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    So, in an atheist's viewpoint time is 'god'? It seems that most explanations boil down to "after billions of years this impossible thing is possible".
    Now you are catching on!! Not impossible things of course, but given enough time improbable things become likely to happen. Dont you agree with that, and if not, why not?

    Surur
  20. #560  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    It seems that most explanations boil down to "after billions of years this impossible thing is possible".
    No one has shown the creation of a cell or DNA is impossible without a deity.

Posting Permissions