• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Does believing in Evolution say a lot about you

Status
Not open for further replies.
^^^^
I agree facts/truth trumph ignorance every time
and I got the ace of spades for you card players

When you take time to stop and think evolution is silly.
I mean if I showed you a fork and spoon and then said they mated and showed you a spork for proof you would laugh ur ass off

But when told an arm becomes a wing with no guidance/ designer
you buy it without batting an eye

NEVER mind the begged question of just what do you do with a half formed wing. AND never mind the hollow design of bone that simultaneously formed while all the other parts that make up a wing formed. And never mind the Iack off flight lessons to soar the skies the very first go around.
Sure you may be able to survive with half formed wing, but just what the hell decided to start the build of a complex appendage such as a wing. Fear of disease.
Lack of food--- if food is short why waste energy
building new parts. Flight dont help disease until you can fly your happy ass away
AND you still have to wait for random mutations to accumulate before you get anywhere. Hoping and praying you dont pull a mutation that kills you out the bag
or you partner decides she ain't giving none to dinosaur with one hand and one partial wing.
cause you got two wings to form remember. There's a chance you may just form one
See where im going with this, its just silly
 
Last edited:
In no particular order:

Stop acting like your dick is a million miles long and you've got this all figured out (and a bag of chips). It really lends nothing to your argument if you're going to act like a child about it.

We've observed, in the short term (years to tens of years) microorganisms "magically" gaining the ability to use new chemical food sources in a closed lab setting. Scientists also observe the differentiation of species into niches which stop cross breeding with each other (there are, for instance, insects which are morphologically similar between the east coast and west coast of America but are genetically different enough from each other that they don't produce viable offspring.) usually in cases where the reproductive rate is high, but on the same time scale.

I think certain breeds of dogs are actually this way, too. Because of years of inbreeding among small populations to accentuate certain traits, some species of dogs don't produce healthy or viable offspring.

I don't see why it's so much of a stretch to think that over millions or tens of millions of years that major structural changes can result from random genetic drift.

NEVER mind the begged question of just what do you do with a half formed wing. AND never mind the hollow design of bone that simultaneously formed while all the other parts that make up a wing formed. And never mind the Iack off flight lessons to soar the skies the very first go around.
Click to expand...

It's not like evolutionary advantage is a binary choice. A proto-bird with poorly developed wings that still conferred an advantage to gliding or assisting it in moving somehow still poses some advantage over other possible mutations.

Moreover, all the freakishly deformed ones die early and/or don't reproduce.

I think it's more of a head trip that dinosaurs are genetically pretty close to birds, rather than the presence of a wing.

Same place as all the transitional primate to human forms-------- cleverly absent
Click to expand...

There's a lot more fossil evidence for intermediate species between H.sapiens and other earlier primates than you seem to imply.

I wont mention 2nd Law of thermodynamics, as you have already thrown that one out the window if you believe in evolution.
Inanimate material doesn't come together to make things more organized. Dont pick up your room for a week if and see if it gets more or less organized.
Click to expand...

... excuse me? Have you heard of, say, crystallization? Take a saturated solution of sugar in hot water, cool it down. Observe the formation of highly ordered crystals spontaneously forming from a disordered solution of randomly moving sugar molecules. It doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics to have a system gain order as long as the total entropy of the subject under consideration and its environment is taken into account (you're transferring entropy as heat from the hot sugar solution to either the environment or to your fridge or freezer's compressor).

AND you still have to wait for random mutations to accumulate before you get anywhere. Hoping and praying you dont pull a mutation that kills you out the bag
Click to expand...

Organisms don't choose to spontaneously mutate. Nor do they direct their own evolution. Genetic drift and the acquisition of new features occurs on much longer timescales than that or chance mutations affecting single offspring.

The Cambrian explosion also has explanations beyond "God did it". A shift in the climate leading to greater amounts of oxygen dissolved in the oceans, more UV shielding from a newly formed ozone layer, etc could all be contributing factors.

Look at this propagandist/endoctinating
bullcrap. why woul do you need to defend a fact or accepted theory. What are they worried about.
Click to expand...

Why do you feel the need to defend your arguments if it's so evident that evolution is a total fake?
 
Last edited:
Yeah I know all the canned answers.
Snowflakes and crystals and finches.

Water molecules already have structure and that gets expressed.
Your talking about having to form DNA and proteins and life not snowflakes baby

What are you thoughts on puntuated equilibrium

Sorry your other responses didnt present any plausible explanation for me
and you skipped lack of fossils from 500 to 800 million years
if you really think one of your other answers is strong enough to warrant real reply I will oblige
An educated guess dont help theory
 
sekio said:
The Cambrian explosion also has explanations beyond "God did it". A shift in the climate leading to greater amounts of oxygen dissolved in the oceans, more UV shielding from a newly formed ozone layer, etc could all be contributing factors
Click to expand...

Besides all these things that sekio points out, there is also very new evidence that multicellular organism appeared in the Precambrian era, some 60 million years before the Cambrian explosion. That is quite a bit of time to evolve into the abundance of live seen in the Cambrian explosion.

http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2014/09/092514-science-cellfossil.html
 
^^
NEVER said no micro organism fossils
where fossils like complex creatures in cambrian layers
article was not informative
Seiko,
Ps dont need a shrink exam just discuss topics
 
Your talking about having to form DNA and proteins and life not snowflakes baby
Click to expand...

Miller-Urey experiment proves that most of the basic components of life like amino acids and nucleotides can form, and there's proof that RNA forms self assembling gene-like structures in water, so again there's more to that than just "God did it".

Punctuated equilibrium is still a possibility, I don't deny that. It's true that lots of biological features are conserved or duplicated and don't change at all over long periods of time. But again, we're talking about geological time scales, not periods of a few years. I don't see how that presents an argument that genetic drift can't happen.

Re:lack of fossils 500-800mya:
Wiki said:
The fossil record from this period is sparse, as more easily fossilized hard-shelled animals had yet to evolve. The Ediacaran biota include the oldest definite multicellular organisms with tissues, and the most common types resemble segmented worms, fronds, disks, or immobile bags.
Click to expand...

Sorry your other responses didnt present any plausible explanation for me
if you really think one of your other answers is strong enough to warrant real reply I will oblige
An educated guess dont help theory
Click to expand...

Okay, here's where we reach the end of our discussion then. It was a pleasure :)
 
I said it was 60 million years before the Cambrian explosion. Rates of evolution and selection increase and decrease depending on various environmental factors (there is your punctuated equilibrium) leaving plenty of time.

I am not sure if the shrink comment was directed at me but other than disagreeing with your premises, I havent tried to get inside your head. However, the whole idea of this thread is about what believing in one idea or another says about a person so maybe take your own advice.



Edit: Not my quote ForEverAfter but I kinda agree.
 
No mam/ sir
was not talking to you
I always appreciate your thoughtful patient responses
I think you misunderstand me or I you,
I was asking specifically what you think about the lack of transitional fossils in strata above cambrian layer where we find an explosion of complex creatures. It is accepted there are not there the why is not known
Thoughts on punctuated equilibrium other than it is theoretically possible .u think it is plausible

Seiko,
Sorry you feel that way. Could have worded different. I know these things theoretically possible was looking more if you think is possible.
Guess you said you do. You have no problem with evo starting and stopping
ps RNA harder to form than u seem to think see Francis Crick- co-discover of dna (as im sure u know ) and why he proposed directed panspermia
also, if experiment proves molecules can make rna byself why dont they make rna so we can see
Do u think rna tends to make itself?
I am not presenting questions to confirm believe.
questions for discussion. I honestly trying to understand how peolle can keep dismissing solid
holes in theory of evo and not admitt problems even scientist will. Defend to death odd to me
you were honest witb puntuated equilibrium I respect that
 
Last edited:
If you tell my wife I am thoughtful and patient, I will agree with anything you say. :)

Thought I would poorly inject some levity into this thread.
 
Thoughts on punctuated equilibrium other than it is theoretically possible .u think it is plausible
Click to expand...

Well, obviously some organisms will diverge much less than others. Punctuated equilibrium makes total sense as an explanation for e.g. the presence of G.biloba trees in the modern world. It's also true that the most effective adaptations are usually caused by shifting environmental conditions - otherwise it's more effective for the creatures with stable genetics to flourish.

ps RNA harder to form than u seem to think see FRancis Crick- co-discover of dna (as im sure u know ) and why he proposed directed panspermia
also, if experiment proves molecules can make rna byself why dont they do it so we can see
Do u think rna tends to make itself
Click to expand...

Part of the issue I have with panspermia is it still really doesn't answer any questions, just moves the problem from one of molecular biology to one of astrobiology. Although it would indeed be a possible explanation given some of the formations we've seen on recovered meteorites (e.g. fossilized microbes from Martian rocks). It still leaves the question of "how did life form in space/other worlds?".

Also, the Miller-Urey experiment has its own set of flaws, namely that it prefers the formation of small, simple compounds and the distribution will depends on the exact environment you're trying to replicate. In simple terms, RNA is not favoured, but stuff like glycine is. Given that we can only guess at conditions the best results we have observed are formation of simple nucleobases. But the earth is a really big and diverse place, much larger than a flask in a lab and hence statistically it would be only a matter of time before some collection of chemicals by lucky chance became "self-assembling". There would almost certainly need to be some sort of powerful energy source, maybe a geothermal vent or natural nuclear reactor. There are theories that maybe natural formations of zeolites or mica could act as scaffolding for the nucleobases, for instance, sort of like an inorganic DNA backbone.

However, as long as there was just ONE self-replicant, (and preferably if it copied itself with a few "errors") you would see a gradual diversification and the flame of life would start. Even just something that stuck proto-RNA bases head-to-tail - eventually it would form an enzyme of a sort, and away you go.

(Short answer: The Miller-Urey experiment hasn't ever produced functional RNA or anything, and the experiment is probably a poor model of Proto-Earth's atmosphere. But it's the proof of concept that you can make organic molecules out of simple inorganic ones, and if you imagine the whole of earth's oceans being rich with various salts, nitrogen, carbon, etc compounds - and peppered with volcanic vents, bombarded with UV, and the like - it's easy to think that you would see at least SOME RNA, somewhere in the vast oceans.)

Honestly, I don't claim to understand all the nuances of evolution. Nor do I think that it's enough to model some things in a lab and then immediately glean the history of all living things. However I can't subscribe to the idea that the earth is younger than 7000 years, nor that all life was "created". There's too much wierd stuff, and like I keep mentioning, observation of creatures' phenotypes changing over generations of offspring due to genetic drift/mutations is undeniable evidence that at least some change happens over time.

The E.coli genetic drift experiment is still my favourite. I find it really cool that a bacteria can gain the ability to use new food sources just due to random changes in its genetics. To me, its kind of like a proof positive for evolution.
 
Ha,
No man you seem cool
I srry to be "cocky" on my points but I feel they deserve serious consideration. I dont say any debunks evo but they start stacking up.
'To the point it is odd nobody dresses points like lack of foosils similar to what we find in cambrian layer. Worms and such ain't nothing like the complex creatures we find.
why can we find the worms but not the trans fossils for complex creatures.
I guess it just seems odd to me not to concede point. It isnt argued by science that they are there.

These are all problems I had with it when i belived it. Living fossils and have to accept puncuated equilibrium or Dawkins views ( very weird if you want to check them out) as to why evolution slows and speeds up dont align with Darwin whatsoever. Thus neo-darwisim.
Trust me I used to make fun of creationist till I realized I had to keep using the far stretching possibilities over and over to cover theory.
I felt like bald man trying to cover bald spot lol
Then one day just couldnt do it anymore.
my imagination just wasnt enough.
I guess u could say I left the flock
BUT seeing as I used to believe in it I completely see why others do.
But difference was I tended to ask more questions about theory.
Made glaring "gaps" light years away
Anyway
 
Sekio,
Wow, honest post. Very few of those!! ( u too Kittycat)

I will have to give the bacteria thing another look not too familiar with that.
I just know anti biotic resistant bacteria are just expression of information they already have.
An amino acid out of place dont leap to changes in my mind especially when they found 30000 year old bacteria resistant to same antibodies we have today. ( I know u were talking bout something else)

And I totally see RNA way to complicated to make itself. I side with crick but not on panspermia. The dam thing on the micro level is like a machine and double helix is like a super machine.(inrespectnto cell)

Just m y opinion. I do respect yours.
I will try to respond on your bacteria example and rna formation in more detail

Ps what u think about all the upside down trees
 
Last edited:
RNA isn't too complicated to make itself, it's just complicated enough. We already have molecules of RNA that serve as catalysts in biological systems called ribozymes.

I just know anti biotic resistant bacteria are just expression of information they already have.
An amino acid out of place dont leap to changes in my mind especially when they found 30000 year old bacteria resistant to same antibodies we have today.
Click to expand...

Some antibiotic resistant bacteria could gain novel resistance when protiens on the cell walls mutate so that instead of expelling some toxin or salt from the bacteria, they gain affinity for e.g. penicillin too. But it's true that most antibiotic resistance genes don't mutate very much & are usually passed around via plasmid between organisms. Which kind of makes sense, really - if the efflux transporter for penicillin mutates too much then it won't confer antibiotic resistance and those cells with the defective protein will be easily killed.

However, isn't it true that antibiotic resistance confers a new phenotype. Like, say, if somehow a human got the chimpanzee's ability to make vitamin C back, and they were living in a climate where fruit etc is scarce, that would be a clear phenotypical gain of features, even though the genetic code may be "old".

An amino acid out of place dont leap to changes in my mind
Click to expand...
You should check out the Protien Data Bank some time, you'd be suprised how widely the 3d structures of protiens can change if you mutate the "right" spots.

Ps what u think about all the upside down trees
Click to expand...

I like how the article makes the leap from "there's no way this could have occurred naturally, 'evolutionists' ignore this, etc" and then goes on to say there were natural physical circumstances that could cause the same. As if that is a disproof that genetic code diverges over time. If you think that the fossil record is totally infallible in all cases, well...

There are also theories that volcanic eruptions could cause polystratification by dumping large amounts of sediment in various layers over time.

also, you write:
Now I am fortunate enough to live on a rather big property and am in my woods all the time.
I see dead trees pretty much daily. You know what dead trees do? They rot and fall over.....Timberrrrr
Click to expand...

That's only because there's air and access to organisms that will destroy the dead tree. If you look at trees that have died from being submerged underwater due to e.g. flooding, you will notice they retain almost all of their structure and essentially won't rot, esp. in standing water. Because there's no oxygen and fish don't eat trees, and marine plants and algae will only do so much damage.

If you were to submerge trees in thick mud suddenly, I'm sure they'd fossilize (or petrify) without decaying.

Check out some of the preserved ruins/remains at Pompeii sometime. The form of soft tissue is remarkably well preserved in volcanic ash.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Noah's flood happened, no. (giant flood that wiped out most life except for the animals noah took with him on his boat that god told him to build) But that's not to say that localized flooding can't happen in some areas and cause those crazy tree fossils. Or, mudslides, volcanoes, glaciers, there's all sorts of ways trees could get buried.

To be totally honest, a lot of biochemistry is pretty complex. However that's really no reason to say it couldn't have come about over a freakishly long timespan. RNA in our "modern" cells is clearly put to more advanced use than a proto-RNA organism would though.

It's not really chemistry, but certain features like the construction of the human eye are pretty damn good arguments against an intelligent designer... who the heck builds the eye with the photosensors behind the blood vessels and all sort of shit rather than, y'know, where they would gather the most light? Or allows damage to one eye to propagate to the other? etc.
 
Last edited:
http://www.icr.org/article/backwards-human-retina-evidence-poor-design/

boy we really disagree on eye

I think it would be the poorest example for evolution cause it does have so many complicated parts
You have to ask yourself how did evolution produce such a bad design then?
Nature makes most ou t of resources right

And I could point you to the ocean for some eyes more complex than a humans

Are they bad designs (I assuming u are aware of them as I am u seem educated on subject)
And BTW Darwin agreed with me on eye being very complex

Seashells on everest

Would have had to be under water at one point
Before mountain formation at very least
zero way round this

Flood story in every civilization on earth pratically
 
Last edited:
Movements of Earth, sure.
The rip in Earth causing the super continent to split I believe could easily explain flood

And yes everest could have been suddenly pushed up bringing with it shells and coral reefs like we see
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top