31 Mar 07
Originally posted by amannioni said in science a theory is....you’re an idiot!
Your second paragraph reads like a definition you nabbed from somewhere and makes no sense when read with the first.
You're wrong about theories. A scientific theory is an accepted explanation for something - it's not about whether it's proven or not.
Evolution is a theory because it is an accepted scientific explanation for a particular phenomena - the e ...[text shortened]... what falsifiability is.
For absolute certainty, you'll need to find that somewhere else.
31 Mar 07
2 edits
I believe in evolution. And I do know what I’m talking about. My minor in Physical Science backs me up. Weather you misunderstands me or your just a idiot I don’t care. But don’t sit there and tell me I’m wrong when you don’t know the different between your thumb and your phallus.
31 Mar 07
Originally posted by crazyfoxNot sure who you're talking to or what you're really on about.
I believe in evolution. And I do know what I’m talking about. My minor in Physical Science backs me up. Weather you misunderstands me or your just a idiot I don’t care. But don’t sit there and tell me I’m wrong when you don’t know the different between your thumb and your phallus.
If you want to spew crap feel free. If it makes you feel good to spout on about your science qualifications feel free.
I teach science and in my experience many students of science know little about the nature of science. I'm guessing you're one of these.
You believe in evolution? What does that mean?
It isn't a faith; not an alternative to religious belief.
'weather you misunderstands me'
Try getting your sentence composition, spelling and grammar right and you might make more of an impact.
31 Mar 07
Originally posted by amannionwhat do you think it means? it mean i don't believe in Creation. it mean that i believe in evolution. not a faith or an alternative to religious belief. what else could it means? and you not a teacher. you are to stupid to be one. what does my grammar have to do with this topic? I just saying that you can’t prove evolution any more then you can God. Isn’t that what the topic is about? Trying to prove evaluation? Are you trying to get to a point? I have no clue what you are trying to get at? You want to play grab azz that fine but go play it some where else.
Not sure who you're talking to or what you're really on about.
If you want to spew crap feel free. If it makes you feel good to spout on about your science qualifications feel free.
I teach science and in my experience many students of science know little about the nature of science. I'm guessing you're one of these.
You believe in evolution? What does t ...[text shortened]... ur sentence composition, spelling and grammar right and you might make more of an impact.
31 Mar 07
Originally posted by crazyfoxWhat the hell are you talking about? Your speech makes no sense. Slow down and take a breath.
what do you think it means? it mean i don't believe in Creation. it mean that i believe in evolution. not a faith or an alternative to religious belief. what else could it means? and you not a teacher. you are to stupid to be one. what does my grammar have to do with this topic? I just saying that you can’t prove evolution any more then you can God. Isn’t ...[text shortened]... t you are trying to get at? You want to play grab azz that fine but go play it some where else.
Of course you can prove evolution, which if you'd paid any attention to your 'physical science' minor, you'd know.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
31 Mar 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhat? Like DNA?
[b]So how exactly do self replicating molecules go about producing life?
What? Like DNA?
And what exactly is so simple about a living cell?
Nothing. Nothing nowadays anyway. However, abiogenesis posits a steady progression from simple self replicating non-living entities, to more complex self-replicating entities, called life.[/b]
No. The self-replicating molecules that you have in the lab.
Nothing. Nothing nowadays anyway. However, abiogenesis posits a steady progression from simple self replicating non-living entities, to more complex self-replicating entities, called life.
This steady progression has never been observed, has it?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
31 Mar 07
Originally posted by NemesioI didn't say it exclusively proved it. In fact, I said proof of this
Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]The evidence does not exclusively prove evolution. In fact, all living organism use the same DNA base pairs, and therefore it is not surprising at all to find similarities in the DNA structures for the perspective of the Creationist.
I didn't say it exclusively proved it. In fact, I said proof of this ...[text shortened]... e odds of this if I flipped 1 billion times
a second for 6 billion years?
Nemesio[/b]
sort is generally not available. I said that it provided strong of evidence
to allow us to conclude it.
So what exactly does this strong evidence allow you to conclude?
Evolution doesn't exclude the so-called 'Tinker Model' of intelligent
design. Scott, himself, wouldn't deny it (though he would opine that
it doesn't require it either). It does exclude the notion of a
literal reading of Genesis.
What exactly do you mean by 'evolution'? Does it include abiogenesis theory?
No one is talking about absolute proof, DJBecker. We are talking about what the similarity in morphology suggests. Just like you got your
blue eyes from your dad (or whatever), we got out postures from
proto-humans, or our warm-bloodedness from our pre-mammalian
ancestor and so forth.
The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are 'read' by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence.A proper comparison has not been made. Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced..
However, even if the human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous, what would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size Michael Denton, 1985. Evolution: Theory in Crisis. (Burnett Books, London).
If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.
Haldane's Dilemma recognises the problem for evolutionists of getting genetic changes in higher organisms, especially those which have long generation times. Due to the cost of substitution (death of the unfit) of one gene for another in a population, it would take over 7x10^11 years of human-like generations to substitute the 120 million base pairs. Or in 10 million years (twice the time since the chimp/human common ancestor is alleged to have lived), only 1667 substitutions could occur, or 0.001% of the difference. There has simply been insufficient time for ape-like creatures to turn into humans. And this understates the problem by assuming perfect efficiency of natural selection and ignoring deleterious processes like inbreeding and genetic drift, as well as problems posed by pleiotropy (one gene controlling more than one characteristic) and polygeny (more than one gene controlling one characteristic) - most real genes. See W.J. ReMine, The Biotic Message (St. Paul Science, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1993), pp. 215-217.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
31 Mar 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzBut before this could happen, you still need a living cell, don't ya?
Of course, reading Nems post, I thought I should point out that nucleotides will spontaneously form chains. This happened millions of times per minute, all over the planet, for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Only 1 of those chains ever had to work.
31 Mar 07
Originally posted by amannionhow you can prove evolution 100%. if your so smart then tell us how you?
What the hell are you talking about? Your speech makes no sense. Slow down and take a breath.
Of course you can prove evolution, which if you'd paid any attention to your 'physical science' minor, you'd know.
31 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerDo you even have a clue how many differences there are between you and your sibling? Do you
I didn't say it exclusively proved it. In fact, I said proof of this
sort is generally not available. I said that it provided strong of evidence
to allow us to conclude it.
So what exactly does this strong evidence allow you to conclude?
Evolution doesn't exclude the so-called 'Tinker Model' of intelligent
design. Scott, hims he Biotic Message (St. Paul Science, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1993), pp. 215-217.[/i]
even have the slightest idea how many nucleotides vary between you and a random human being?
The differences between chimps and humans are as genetically constrained as the differences
between you and your father (there are just more of them).
It's this fraudulent idea that the nucleotides just sorta randomly assemble and, bingo, an amoeba
turns into a fish that is tripping you up. It's not random, it's constrained (just like how babies are
made).
Nemesio
01 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerThis boils down to "I don't believe it so it isn't true".
If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.
Most DNA does nothing. There is no selection pressure for that to be conserved at all. Let's say 3 million years to the last common ancestor. 20 years as an average generation time. That gives us 150,000 generations. 100,000 DNA substitutions per generation, mainly in non-coding regions. That's a mutation rate of 33 in a million, which is an order of magnitude slower than has been observed.
[edit; of course, it's important to remember that many, many mutations take place during normal growth, cellular reproduction and development. The number of generations should really be represented by the number of cellular generations, since mutations will happen during every replication. Thus, we could be talking millions or billions of generations of cells, rather than 150,000.]
01 Apr 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerBrief response to ReMine here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html
[b
Haldane's Dilemma recognises the problem for evolutionists of getting genetic changes in higher organisms, especially those which have long generation times. Due to the cost of substitution (death of the unfit) of one gene for another in a population, it would take over 7x10^11 years of human-like generations to substitute the 120 million base pairs ...[text shortened]... W.J. ReMine, The Biotic Message (St. Paul Science, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1993), pp. 215-217.