Hash (imported) wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:21 am Controlled by creationists? If you think evolution is actual science then explain complexity & entropy? My problem with evolutionists is that they assert or postulate that after life occurred in the primeval swamp, that these single celled creatures were able to determine their need to see, their need to hear, their need to smell, so they developed these specific organs with their cognitive abilities.

That is not how evolution works. What probably happened is that one organism had a mutation that made part of its skin or membrane slightly sensitive to light. It gained a slight advantage because it could move into the light to make more sugar by photosynthesis. Or it could move away from the shadow of a predator. Because of this slight advantage, it had more offspring. Some of the offspring had slightly better sight. After millions of years, animals had evolved eyes.

gareth19 (imported) wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:15 am And you are not afraid of the earth's future being controlled by ignorance, blind luck, or creationists?

If I had magic powers, I would split the world into two. One world in which the people wanted social policy, laws and education based on science and the other based on religion.

I think almost everybody would be happier at first. Some of the people who chose to live in the religious world might find that it was not as good as they thought it would be.

Here again, a probability statement not based on fact. You can't use the word "probably" in science and if you studied mutations, you'd realize that a mutation cannot determine or create a specific organ. Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication. At least 70% of mutations have damaging effects, and the remainder are neutral or weakly beneficial, that's scientifically proven, weakly beneficial does not mean that the mutation induced the development of a complex and efficient organ such as an eye or nose. Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on cells, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA to repair or remove mutations. There is so much "chance" involved in evolution that you have to have more faith to believe in it then you do to believe in an almighty creator.

The resistance to accept that man was created is strange to me. Man in his desire to distance himself from a creator, contrives theories that are unscientific but are accepted because to believe in a creator is undesirable and unacceptable, and it's unacceptable because that means that man has to admit that he's not the highest power in the universe and is required to listen to the creator. Man is not blind to what the creator has created, man is prideful and stubborn and so he rejects what he sees and hears.

Hash (imported) wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:02 am Wow, o.k., testicles turn into ovaries after

[quote="SplitDik (imported)" ti

Hash (imported) wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:02 am me=1260807900]
a short course of gene therapy,

but will the testicles turned ovaries ascend into one's body or stay in the sack? What happens to the penis? When talking about genes, I would assume that the penis would drastically shrink, taking on a clitoris appearance. I wonder if young male pre-puberty kids who display more feminine char
[/quote]
acteristics could actually reverse their sex? I wonder.

Testicles once formed will not turn into "full" ovaries with total capacity. However they will become neutered but will not fully ascend back into the abdomen because they cannot. Also they will simply put out more estrogen and less testosterone but will not produce eggs. The penis once it is formed will not be reformed by the body. Likewise ovaries once formed will not turn into "full" testes, vice versa.

Believe me I have studied into this and there is a lot of very heavy-duty scientific reading (for someone who is not college trained) about this stuff.

Hash (imported) wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:02 am Here again, a probability statement not based on fact. You can't use the word "probably" in science and if you studied mutations, you'd realize that a mutation cannot determine or create a specific organ. Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication. At least 70% of mutations have damaging effects, and the remainder are neutral or weakly beneficial, that's scientifically proven, weakly beneficial does not mean that the mutation induced the development of a complex and efficient organ such as an eye or nose. Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on cells, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA to repair or remove mutations. There is so much "chance" involved in evolution that you have to have more faith to believe in it then you do to believe in an almighty creator.

The resistance to accept that man was created is strange to me. Man in his desire to distance himself from a creator, contrives theories that are unscientific but are accepted because to believe in a creator is undesirable and unacceptable, and it's unacceptable because that means that man has to admit that he's not the highest power in the universe and is required to listen to the creator. Man is not blind to what the creator has created, man is prideful and stubborn and so he rejects what he sees and hears.

Oh dear, you've trotted out all the old creationist lies. Are you a real creationist, or just a parody?

Trying telling a quantum physicist that they can't say "probably".

kb57z (imported) wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:17 pm Oh dear, you've trotted out all the old creationist lies. Are you a real creationist, or just a parody?

Trying telling a quantum physicist that they can't say "probably".

quantum physics, to me, has always seemed like a joke. Granted I have never studied in depth, but from what theories I have heard it seems utterly ridiculous. An object that creates a sound exists in all possible locations that you can't see until you look at it, then its possible locations cascade to a single point because you look at it? come now if that isn't ridiculous i don't know what is. heres another good one, object change their properties when you try to measure them. note it isn't the way you measure them, its measuring them in and of itself. Has anything good ever come of quantum physics? who pays for these people to write these things?

Personally I've never thought of creationism and the idea of things evolving to conflict. first and foremost of course things change and that includes people and all other things. Look at farming and how the farmers changer their crops by selecting the best for seed/ to reproduce, and end up with better and better crops. but that doesn't mean that god didn't put us, and everything else here to begin with and then watched everything go on its merry way. For those of you that garden, how rewarding is it to watch something you planted grow? in his own image...

but since no-one can go back in time and watch evolution, and because no-one can reproduce it with experiments (yes I'm aware of the experiments where they create near dna from a primordial soup but they've never created an organism), it cannot be called scientific fact. Its a fact that things evolve to a greater or lesser extent because we can observe it, but it is not fact that we all came from some primordial soup.

Trotted out the old creationist lies? What lie have a told? I tried to show that evolution is wrong and I'm a liar? Again an evolutionist who won't listen because he doesn't want to even consider that a creator could actually exist. Please open your eyes and your mind, complexity screams creator.

...

...

Dharkbus (imported) wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:55 pm but since no-one can go back in time and watch evolution, and because no-one can reproduce it with experiments (yes I'm aware of the experiments where they create near dna from a primordial soup but they've never created an organism), it cannot be called scientific fact. Its a fact that things evolve to a greater or lesser extent because we can observe it, but it is not fact that we all came from some primordial soup.

You see, the problem with the argument that you are making is that life is so complex, it couldn't evolve from raw ingredients.

It is the old "complexity" argument that has been rejected by years of discovery by biologists, microbiologists and others dealing with living things.

We've heard it all before --

Eyes are too complex to evolve.

The tails of flagellum (or whatever they are called) couldn't rotate by nature methods. Therefore sperm and bacteria cannot move through fluids.

Even Thought is too complex to evolve.

And yet, science continues to prove how those things evolve and work. Eventually some scientist will discover how DNA formed from the primordial soup (as you call it). Then the argument against evolution will move to another aspect of life and that will be given as the reason for the raging failure of evolution.

There was an article recently about how feeding birds in our backyards changes their migration patterns and how they might evolve into the birds of the future. This happens over a period of tens of years. It is called evolution... It occurs in much less than man's lifetime.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/0912 ... ution.html

>>Here is the beginning of the article I mentioned above:

>>It describes the evolution of birds by man's intervention

>>

Dave (imported) wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:34 pm http://www.livescience.com/animals/0912 ... ution.html

Human Feeding Creates New Population of Birds

By Charles Q. Choi, Special to LiveScience

posted: 03 December 2009 12:01 pm ET

By feeding birds, you could alter their evolutionary future, with changes visible in the very near term, scientists now conclude.

Due to winter bird-feeding, what was once a single population of birds has, in fewer than 30 generations, been split into two groups that do not interbreed, despite the fact that they continue to breed side by side in the very same forests.

"Our study documents the profound impact of human activities on the evolutionary trajectories of species," said researcher Martin Schaefer, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Freiburg in Germany. "It shows that we are influencing the fate not only of rare and endangered species, but also of the common ones that surround our daily lives."

There's more at this link:

Dave (imported) wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:34 pm http://www.livescience.com/animals/0912 ... ution.html

Hash (imported) wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:02 am Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication. At least 70% of mutations have damaging effects, and the remainder are neutral or weakly beneficial, that's scientifically proven, weakly beneficial does not mean that the mutation induced the development of a complex and efficient organ such as an eye or nose.

This book:

http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker- ... 032&sr=8-1

explains how complex organs can evolve mush better than I can.