Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#84284 Apr 1, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm...."...nothing is absolute...."
Except, of course, the mind and ego of the "scientist", which is pristine and perfect!
One dare not challenge his (or her) presumptions or biases!
One dare not challenge the almighty scientist!
Of course they can. Just submit a science paper to any peer-reviewed biology journal.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#84285 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to break it to you but the theory of evolution is science fiction with the use of logic. That's all there is. No real evidence.
More like pseudo-logic with no evidence.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#84286 Apr 1, 2013
Sometimes wrote:
I think Neanderthals are ruling the world!
Quasi-Neanderthals
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#84287 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
Wishful thinking. Real scientists must be laughing at your assinite rhetoric. Darwin is dead. And the theory must die along. We all know it's all empty-talk and trash talk.
Sorry, but the theory has evolved since his day. It is now known as what's called the modern evolutionary synthesis.
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop dreaming. You have not addressed my questions on evolution. Do you have anything to contribute to the old fairy tale of a theory?
You have not addressed the evidence for evolution. In fact no fundie on the face of the entire planet has. All they can do is beat up straw-man versions of it or say evolution "must" be wrong cuz science doesn't know everything yet.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#84288 Apr 1, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwin was wrong in his racist views, never gloss over that!
I dealt with his alleged racial views on page 1 of this very thread. And they still have no bearing on the validity of biology.
superwilly wrote:
My criticism is about the narcissistic character of some "scientists" who quite clearly think they ARE god.
When you point out faults in the logic they employ and inconsistencies in methodology and give specifics they merely dismiss it outright, never looking at it from a different point of view.
I had a professor tell me "I don't have enough time for that!".
Well, shouldn't he have considered that a student would pick up on things before he presented it to an anthropology class as absolute immutable truth?
It happens. It is obvious on this thread. Don't ever dare question "science"!
YOU don't dare question science because you are completely ignorant of the subject. That is why your baseless criticisms and opinions are dismissed. So you wanna complain that that mean old Dawkins is a big meanie? Go right ahead.(shrug) But when it turns out that the concept you're denying has the support of every major scientific institution in the world including literally hundreds of thousands of scientists who accept it just as they accept gravity, AND take into account that 99.99999999% of all its detractors do so because they think Goddidit with magic, that should tell you something.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#84289 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Just let this thread die. So you can stop showing your arrogance and ignorance.
Nah, it's still young yet. Only 80,001. The Markie thread has fallen behind with 111,000 posts. In the lead now is the Cowboy thread with 123,000. I'll wager you'll look like this by the time it's done:

http://www.build-a-beard.com/storage/ZZ-Top-4...

:-p
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#84290 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is not one of the hard sciences, and is not the foundation to all sciences. Real sciences are independent of their own. Pharmacology is a field in medicine.
And what school did you go to? The University of Newcastle where they teach you that a frog can turn into a prince?
The only thing I give TOE credit for is the use of logic, even with the absence of real evidence.
No, physics technically speaking is the foundation to all sciences. However evolution IS biology, and biology IS a hard science, just like physics and chemistry. We know this because otherwise things like medicine that you mentioned would not exist. Oh, and we have PLENTY of evidence:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Now once you come up with an alternative plausible explanation for retroviral orthology in all the great apes then maybe you'd have a point.(shrug)

“Move into the light.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#84291 Apr 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Here. let me make it easier for you. From the Wiki article on ERV's:
"The replication cycle of a retrovirus entails the insertion ('integration') of a DNA copy of the viral genome into the nuclear genome of the host cell. Most retroviruses infect somatic cells, but occasional infection of germline cells (cells that produce eggs and sperm) can also occur. Rarely, retroviral integration may occur in a germline cell that goes on to develop into a viable organism. This organism will carry the inserted retroviral genome as an integral part of its own genome - an 'endogenous' retrovirus (ERV) that may be inherited by its offspring as a novel allele. Many ERVs have persisted in the genome of their hosts for millions of years. However, most of these have acquired inactivating mutations during host DNA replication, and are no longer capable of producing virus. ERVs can also be partially excised from the genome by a process known as recombinational deletion, in which recombination between the identical sequences that flank newly integrated retroviruses results in deletion of the internal, protein-coding regions of the viral genome."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retro...
The formation of an ERV into germline cells is a very rare event. It is much rarer than a once in a generation event for a whole population.
The point is that ERV's are well observed. You asked about them, I gave you the information. Now you are trying to move the goal posts.
For all intents and purpose ERVs seem to be viral outbreaks that were defeated with a price, the price of defeat was absorption. Almost like invading China with the intent to take over
but in the end becoming Chinese. Which goes with the age old saying, "that which does not kill me...makes me stronger".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#84292 Apr 1, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I say I was arguing against evolution with the professor?, no.
My comment is attacks the attitude of the professor or scientist.
Yes, Darwin WAS racist, I have posted his own words on this thread.
So have I. Here they are again:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

That still has no bearing on the validity of any scientific concept. Tycho Brahe was a bit of an ahole, but that doesn't make him any less of an astronomer.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#84293 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet biology doesn't have an actual definition for species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
Actually they DO have definitions, but the problem is BECAUSE of evolution. Because life changes over time, species are not static and do not stay in nice neat little pigeon holes that our labels prefer. It is not an evolution problem, merely a language problem.
Cybele wrote:
I studied pharmacology and it is not dependent on evolutionary biology but physiology. It has nothing to do with evolution of species.
And physiology has EVERYTHING to do with evolution. Or can your pharmacological training tell us the likelihood of fossils with feathers and three middle-ear bones? Or homo-centric ERV's in cats?
Cybele wrote:
What does computer science have to do with evolution?
Oh, like the fact they use SIFTER using evolutionary algorithms to predict protein function with 96% accuracy. That good enough for ya? Nah, probably not. Reality often isn't enough for science deniers.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#84294 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the idiot if you can't answer my questions.
Does it matter what percentage of cells will be infected? The question I have is on the infected cells. You can't even name one virus.
Sure we can. HERV-K for one:
Gillette wrote:
A virus which infects primates could infect both chimps and humans. However, that's not a retroviral insert.
If you get a virus in one of your cells, it inserts its DNA in with your DNA in order to make more copies of itself.
If that happens in a blood cell, then that one cell has the DNA insert.
If EVERY cell in your body has the DNA insert, it's part of your DNA.
That ONLY happens when a virus gets into a sperm or egg which goes on to produce a living being.
From then on, anyone born to that lineage will also have the same retroviral insert in their DNA.
So, if this happened to your grandfather's sperm, it caused you dad to have it. Your dad passes it on to you, you pass it on to your children.
That's a retroviral insert.
Any given virus COULD be an insert and COULD insert into any part of the gene sequence.
So, for you and I to have the same insert in the same place on our DNA, there are only two possibilities.
A) Someone a long way back had the virus and we both descend from that person.
B) The EXACT same virus infected two different people, and randomly inserted itself into the EXACT same spot on the INCREDIBLY LONG DNA sequence (3 BILLION pairs = 3 BILLION possible places to insert itself), and then that cell HAPPENED to be a sperm and HAPPENED to result in a kid.
The odds against B are very long, but not impossible.
However, you and I don't just have ONE retrovirus in common, we have many.(let's say 30 for the sake of the discussion).
So, either you and I descend from one individual who had the 30 virus inserts -or- B happened 30x in a row without ever having a single mistaken location or additional virus.
Odds against that? Too long to have ever occured in the entire history of the universe.
So, the fact that ALL humans have the same retroviral DNA inserts means that ALL humans share a common ancestor who had those same inserts.
Get it? Good.
Now, understand this. Of the 30 retroviral inserts we all share, chimps ALSO have 15 of them.
That means that at some point, a long time ago, when there were only 15 retroviral inserts, an individual existed who was both the forefather of all humans and the forefather of all chimps.
That's common descent.
if two people have the same retroviral insert in the same place in their DNA, they likely share a common ancestor.
And we've concluded that if two people have more than one of the same retroviral insert in the same place in their DNA, the odds against them not sharing a common ancestor go up exponentially with each additional insert.
Onto the next point:
Looking at insertion points for one retrovirus (HERV-K) here's what we find:
# of retroviral insertion points in common between humans and...
New World Monkeys: 2
Old World Monkeys: 4
Gibbons: 7
Orangutans: 9
Gorillas & Chimps: 11
Other Humans: 14
So what does that tell us?
It tells us that we share a common ancestor with all of these.
It tells us the order in which the various groups split off.
The least # of viruses in common split first. The most # split last.
The odds against humans and chimps both aquiring 11 common inserts? 1:1 followed by 132 zeros.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#84295 Apr 1, 2013
Ah, guess I was 54 minutes too late with that one. Never mind!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#84296 Apr 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, physics technically speaking is the foundation to all sciences. However evolution IS biology, and biology IS a hard science, just like physics and chemistry. We know this because otherwise things like medicine that you mentioned would not exist. Oh, and we have PLENTY of evidence:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Now once you come up with an alternative plausible explanation for retroviral orthology in all the great apes then maybe you'd have a point.(shrug)
I do have a point and you're ignoring it. Not only do scientists claim viruses can be hereditary, but also it is a means of horizontal gene transfer, which has zero evidence in chimps, humans, and gorillas. Science says HIV is a an example of ERV when other sources claim it is not genetically transmitted. One article proves herpesvirus 6 hidden in chromosomes and is heritable but how many chimps and humans are affected by this that it serves as a proven evidence of ERV? Your math to back this up will be way off, I will you that.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#84297 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not joking.
Science websites states there is no direct evidence for speciation because the event happened in the distant past. Which leaves the theory with just conjectures.
But we have evidence in the present. It's called DNA. You may have heard of it. We know how it works, we can observe it in action. Now the moment you discover a human born with the genome of a cactus, well then that's a prediction that evolution does NOT make. Then evolution will be falsified. YAY FUNDIES!!!
Cybele wrote:
The fruit fly experiment given a different food source for the flies denotes geographic isolation for many generations that led to speciation. With that experimental logic, I can say that an Asian man is a different species than a Caucasian man because of isolating population and they have different food source. Do you not see the flaw in that logic?
Yup, since caucasians and asians can still interbreed.
Cybele wrote:
What is the true definition of species considering the fact that neanderthals were able to interbreed with homo sapiens?
They are considered to be a subspecies.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#84298 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't stopped learning.
With all that research you've done you have not spotted even one contradiction or inconsistencies in the theory of evolution?
Well most of the contradictions and inconsistencies tend to be in the mind of the ignorant who criticize the subject without even learning about it. Other inconsistencies are perfectly normal as they do not threaten the concept of common ancestry at all, and are therefore debated on within the framework of evolution - this kind of thing is normal in any scientific theory. It's scientists trying to figure out the specifics of exactly what happened. Complicated, sure. Then fundies come across something and say that biology as we know it is about to collapse.

They've been saying the same thing well over 100 years.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#84299 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I do have a point and you're ignoring it. Not only do scientists claim viruses can be hereditary, but also it is a means of horizontal gene transfer, which has zero evidence in chimps, humans, and gorillas. Science says HIV is a an example of ERV when other sources claim it is not genetically transmitted. One article proves herpesvirus 6 hidden in chromosomes and is heritable but how many chimps and humans are affected by this that it serves as a proven evidence of ERV? Your math to back this up will be way off, I will you that.
What scientists claim viruses are hereditary?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#84300 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I do have a point and you're ignoring it. Not only do scientists claim viruses can be hereditary, but also it is a means of horizontal gene transfer, which has zero evidence in chimps, humans, and gorillas. Science says HIV is a an example of ERV when other sources claim it is not genetically transmitted. One article proves herpesvirus 6 hidden in chromosomes and is heritable but how many chimps and humans are affected by this that it serves as a proven evidence of ERV? Your math to back this up will be way off, I will you that.
Then post your linky. It will either not claim that common ancestry is in "serious doubt" as you do or it'll be a case of a crank site over-exaggerating its case.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#84301 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously tell me why doctors need to know we evolved from fish?
Natural selection is fact, within a closed system. Mutation is fact, but not on a larger scale as in macro-evolution unless you have DNA evidence.
The rest it just junk.
Of course we have DNA evidence. Find us just one chimp with the DNA of an aardvark. Find this, and evolution is falsified. YAY FUNDIES!!!

Pity that the Earth being as old as it is can't prevent mutations from accumulating. You should have stuck with the YECers.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#84302 Apr 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no problem with the phylogenetic tree. It shows the variations and similarities in all life forms. But to infer that one evolved from another is an exaggeration. Hyperbole!
Not at all. That's why the pattern of DNA matches comparative anatomy. That's why Chimp DNA is closest to humans and so are the bones that make up their skeleton. If you have an alternative explanation the entire world would love to see it.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#84303 Apr 1, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, the scientific method works quite well thank you. Science has already falsified Genesis and Exodus and Joshua. We're working on the rest of it.
There is already a tool found in nature that falsifies data. We don’t need a flawed man made concept to do this.
The scientific evidence you present should be soundly judged with the “Law of non-contradiction” found in nature. Man/woman is prone to mistakes and biased and prejudice views.

Scientific laws are absolutes and validated by the “Law of non-contradictory” which means your answer must be constant. Hence, you cannot use one word with two opposite meanings. This is where the law of non-contradictory becomes the scientific method and not a man-made concept that permits you to define words anyway you want to.

Theory of evolution is a pseudo-science when it says the origin of biological species is not fixed.

A biological reproductive species is fixed (law of non-contradictory) and this means the humans on planet earth has always been this way since there origin on earth according to strata/fossil layers.

To say a human being which is now a fixed species and was not a fixed species 30 million year ago violates the Law of non-contradictory.

We can’t be a human being in existence now and a non-human being in existence in the distant past regardless of the time scale it took us to SO CALL CHANGE FROM ONE BIOLOGOCAL SPECIES TO AN OPPOSITE (CONTRADICTORY) BIOLOGICAL SPECIES! This violates the law of non-contradiction.

CASE CLOSED!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 3 min Hitesrunprincess 186
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 4 min Chilli J 4,168
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 6 min say it aint so 28,159
Goats Milk with Princess (Jan '10) 7 min Hitesrunprincess 46,437
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 10 min say it aint so 78,544
Poll Favorite Fart Smells 13 min Wrench1Off 1
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 14 min Concerned_American 139,779
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 28 min Tom2Tone 159,884
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 40 min TALLYHO 8541 39,983
Word Association (Jun '10) 46 min Mega Monster 26,960
News After Uproar, Utah Restaurant Statue Loses Prom... 55 min Troll master Willie 3
More from around the web