Evolution
#21
(06-28-2012, 12:36 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: Salus Darwin's Theories of Natural Selection have nothing to do with Global Warming, so I don't see the point in implicating him in this decision. And regardless of whether one believes in Global Warming or that its man-made the armount of carbon dioxide that we put into the atmosphere is not healthy, even moreso now that we're cutting down the trees that would turn that CO2 into O2. And that the govt has chosen to regulate our carbon footprint is not a bad thing.
Global Warming is a lie. Climate Gate proved that. There are hundreds of climatologists that say it's a lie. I will post some links below to show how it has more to do with population control then saving the planet. Global warming and the environmentalists ultimately worship the Earth, or Gaia. One more thing if the Oceans are rising and the coasts are going to be underwater, why did Al Gore by a mansion on the California coast?

http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming3.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...nge-shock/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...ing-again/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/ar...88227.html

Here is an imortant one.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic...ng-absurd/
Reply
#22
(06-28-2012, 08:17 PM)GloriaPatri Wrote: Converting the little guy means, well, little seeing that most people are scientifically illiterate. If you were to convince a professional scientist of the scientific factuality of Genesis, now that would mean something. Most people, having little knowledge of science, can be easily fooled in both directions.

If a scientist is convinced of the literal events of Genesis, he'll be tossed into the outer darkness.  Much like Patrick Moore the co-founder of Greenpeace saw the "pop environmentalists" pushing an agenda in which they refused to acknowledge evidence that went against their agenda. 

Fred Hoyle can dream up "directed panspermia" and that will be accepted because of the bias towards Atheism in the scientific clique.
Reply
#23
(06-28-2012, 09:16 PM)Axona Wrote: Just because evolution may be associated with atheism, etc., does not somehow make it a conspiracy or even false.

No. But the association makes sense if it is false. 

Quote: Evolution is a result of changes in the genetic code in a population over time.

For which there is no evidence of change from Phylum to Phylum. 

Quote: If you accept that a bacteria population over time can become resistant to antibiotics through natural selection then you must accept (micro)evolution

"Natural Selection" is simply a quaint name given to the observation that whatever survives survives.  The strain of bacteria that already resists the anti-biotic propagates while the others die. The vast majority of genetic abnormalities do not prove beneficial to the "mutant." 

Quote: If you accept (micro)evolution then you must accept (macro)evolution

No. There is limited adaptation before returning to a base. Goldfish lose their color, finches beaks return to a smaller size when the food supply is more ample. But finches stay finches and there's no proof of common ancestry.

Quote: Because both (micro) and (macro)evolution happen in the same way and for the same reasons, and there really is no reason why over time the former cannot become the latter.

The Wystar report in the 1960s put an end to that as a mathematical possibility.  And when you calculate the number of morphological "benefits" that have to transition themselves randomly to make an extreme Phylum to Phylum change, it just doesn't have plausibility. 

Reply
#24
(06-28-2012, 09:31 PM)Melkite Wrote: Wake up and smell the coffee, they're already doing genetic testing on some types of fossils where the genetic material has been preserved.  It's not showing anything disturbingly unexpected.

Of course, because in their models the conclusions are unfalsifiable.  Whatever they pick up they can plug into some area where they can speculate about how their system holds together. There is no scenario where they can find something buried and not make up a place for it.  When they find nothing, they call it "stasis" for Pete's sake. 
Reply
#25
Reply
#26
(06-28-2012, 10:45 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(06-28-2012, 09:16 PM)Axona Wrote: Just because evolution may be associated with atheism, etc., does not somehow make it a conspiracy or even false.

No. But the association makes sense if it is false. 

Quote: Evolution is a result of changes in the genetic code in a population over time.

For which there is no evidence of change from Phylum to Phylum. 

Quote: If you accept that a bacteria population over time can become resistant to antibiotics through natural selection then you must accept (micro)evolution

"Natural Selection" is simply a quaint name given to the observation that whatever survives survives.  The strain of bacteria that already resists the anti-biotic propagates while the others die. The vast majority of genetic abnormalities do not prove beneficial to the "mutant." 

Quote: If you accept (micro)evolution then you must accept (macro)evolution

No. There is limited adaptation before returning to a base. Goldfish lose their color, finches beaks return to a smaller size when the food supply is more ample. But finches stay finches and there's no proof of common ancestry.

Quote: Because both (micro) and (macro)evolution happen in the same way and for the same reasons, and there really is no reason why over time the former cannot become the latter.

The Wystar report in the 1960s put an end to that as a mathematical possibility.  And when you calculate the number of morphological "benefits" that have to transition themselves randomly to make an extreme Phylum to Phylum change, it just doesn't have plausibility. 

You're mistakenly equating adaptation with microevolution. The two are not the same. Adaptation has nothing to do with the passing on of genes. Single organisms adapt, e.g., humans sweat when the weather is warm in order to cool down their bodies. They stop sweating when the weather becomes cool again. Populations evolve, e.g., the gene pool of a bacteria population changes over time due to selection. The new gene pool does not "revert" back to the original gene pool once the environmental pressure is removed. If you apply an antibiotic to a culture of ten bacteria, nine of which are susceptible and one of which is immune (due to different genes), the one immune bacterium will propagate, generating a culture with genes identical to the one immune parent. This new immune culture does not "return to a base," or suddenly become susceptible again once the antibiotic is removed.

Very succinct evidence for evolution can be seen in the various dog breeds. Every dog breed originated from the wolf. Humans domesticated such wolves via artificial selection, which works in the same way as natural selection, except, instead of nature doing the selection, humans do it. The IGF gene, for example, is very important for the evolution of small dogs, which were artificially selected for by humans, thereby allowing for small dogs to propagate. Since the IGF gene is conserved in small dogs and not in big dogs, one can see that very small genetic changes can have vast anatomic consequences. Furthermore, one would have to agree that a chihuahua and a German shepherd both are dogs originating from wolves. However, they cannot mate nor produce offspring together naturally due to their size differences. If the gene pool of each of the two dog populations continued to change over time, one would observe the two populations becoming more and more distinct from each other -- hence, evolution.

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news52
Reply
#27
(06-28-2012, 09:16 PM)Axona Wrote: Just because evolution may be associated with atheism, etc., does not somehow make it a conspiracy or even false.

Evolution is a result of changes in the genetic code in a population over time.

If you accept that a bacteria population over time can become resistant to antibiotics through natural selection then you must accept (micro)evolution
If you accept (micro)evolution then you must accept (macro)evolution

Because both (micro) and (macro)evolution happen in the same way and for the same reasons, and there really is no reason why over time the former cannot become the latter.

Actually the "theory" of evolution posits that genetic mutation is the vehicle of change.As of yet unproven.
What we do know is that in the main mutations are seriously detrimental to organisms.What you re suggesting is that we have had a disproportionate preponderance of seriously debilitated organisms throughout the eons but every once in a while a healthy one sneaks through the cracks to produce a viable new species.I say that given the diversity of life on Earth this is a seriously untenable idea.

The term Micro-evolution is an abuse of languagenothing has evolved.The Bacterium is as it was but has now developed resistance which is an adaption to an outside stimulus.
Reply
#28
(07-01-2012, 07:54 AM)Axona Wrote: You're mistakenly equating adaptation with microevolution. ....This new immune culture does not "return to a base," or suddenly become susceptible again once the antibiotic is removed.

I think it is you who has confused the terms.The Bacteria remains  bacteria regardless of any resistance it may or may not pass along.Evidence suggests that the genes for antibiotic resistance are as ancient as the drug components themselves and are simply expressed when exposed to the correct conditions. People also develop resistance.Yet we are sill Homo-sapien and not homo-sapien- lentus.

Antibiotic resistance is ancient.

"Abstract

The discovery of antibiotics more than 70 years ago initiated a period of drug innovation and implementation in human and animal health and agriculture. These discoveries were tempered in all cases by the emergence of resistant microbes. This history has been interpreted to mean that antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria is a modern phenomenon; this view is reinforced by the fact that collections of microbes that predate the antibiotic era are highly susceptible to antibiotics. Here we report targeted metagenomic analyses of rigorously authenticated ancient DNA from 30,000-year-old Beringian permafrost sediments and the identification of a highly diverse collection of genes encoding resistance to β-lactam, tetracycline and glycopeptide antibiotics. Structure and function studies on the complete vancomycin resistance element VanA confirmed its similarity to modern variants. These results show conclusively that antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon that predates the modern selective pressure of clinical antibiotic use.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21881561
Reply
#29
Gerard is doing the work, so no need for me to get into the nitty gritty. Not that it is in the realm of my competence anyway.

But, all I have to add is quite simple. I have noticed that since Darwin, man has been convinced he is an animal. And we have seen a turning away from God and on the whole, we have witnessed a de-evolution of culture, art, ideas, etc.

Eugenics, total war, this talk of useless eaters. All very scientific, but not very Christian.
Reply
#30
(07-01-2012, 07:54 AM)Axona Wrote: You're mistakenly equating adaptation with microevolution. The two are not the same. Adaptation has nothing to do with the passing on of genes. Single organisms adapt, e.g., humans sweat when the weather is warm in order to cool down their bodies. They stop sweating when the weather becomes cool again.

That's not adaptation. That's a function of the body functioning. 

Quote: Populations evolve, e.g., the gene pool of a bacteria population changes over time due to selection. The new gene pool does not "revert" back to the original gene pool once the environmental pressure is removed.

The finches on the Galapagos islands beaks grew sturdier during the drought period and returned to normal when drought ended. 

Quote: Very succinct evidence for evolution can be seen in the various dog breeds. Every dog breed originated from the wolf.

Breeding is just that. Breeding. It's not evolution, you can't breed a kind of dog into a fish. 

Quote: Furthermore, one would have to agree that a chihuahua and a German shepherd both are dogs originating from wolves. However, they cannot mate nor produce offspring together naturally due to their size differences.

But I'm sure they can mate with intermediate dogs on either side of them.  There is no phylum to phylum movement and no evidence that it wouldn't rebound at some point. 

Quote: If the gene pool of each of the two dog populations continued to change over time, one would observe the two populations becoming more and more distinct from each other -- hence, evolution.

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news52

That's the problem "IF." That presupposes a uniformitarianist outlook and not a bounded range of possible change.  The bounded change has been observed, new speciation in the animal world has not. 

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)