It's a statement of fact about the biology of creationists.
I already know that your entire point in these threads is to troll people. I do, however, tend to give others the benefit of the doubt that they are here for legitimate reasons.
Hence, my question to him still stands, your answer notwithstanding.
It's a statement of fact about the biology of creationists.
Cf. every living creationist. I would say that, from an empirical standpoint (well, from most any standpoint, really), the claim that creationists have brains is much less subject to debate than the theory of evolution. Actually, the evidence that supposedly supports the theory of evolution is, at best, on par with the empirical evidence that demonstrably supports the claim that creationists have brains. Therefore, since (presumably) the reason for saying they have no brains is that they fail to agree with you on the theory of evolution, the fact that you then make a claim which is more difficult to defend, or, to completely rid myself of all potential worries, is at least as difficult to defend, you sort of just put yourselves into a pretty ugly loop. You could then actually use the same reasoning you used to argue that you have no brain. Unless, of course, you were arguing that for a different reason, and it is quite difficult to see any other coherent defense of your claim utilizing some other form of reasoning. So yeah, bad or bad. Yikes.
If you want to be silly and unreasonable, I will too be silly, but perhaps a little more reasonable. Let's not be silly here.
Want to defend this claim. Or anyone? I just want to see a defense... to see how it goes. As I said, I don't know too much about this. I just want to see where the confidence comes from.
Really? I mean... Really? What was the point of that statement?
If you want someone to respect you and your opinion, and (more importantly) want to convert them to your side, berating them and constantly mocking them is actively working against your goal.
I'm not asking anyone to respect my opinion. I don't care for the respect of people that are a serious threat to the educational system.
If the mods feel my comment was in poor taste, and deem it necessary to give me in infraction...fine. I'll accept it as crossing the line and won't let it happen again, but I thought it was a fairly minor jab at a group of people nobody should take seriously except by virtue of the "intellectual" danger they present.
I just want to see a defense... to see how it goes. As I said, I don't know too much about this. I just want to see where the confidence comes from.
Read the thread. And no I'm not trying to be 'cute'.
It is a FACT that populations of organisms change over time. It is a THEORY as to how that comes to be. So evolution in a nutshell, is about differences, GENETIC VARIATION (something we can directly observe), how those differences have consequences that are either beneficial or detrimental, ADAPTATION (also something we can directly observe), and how the interaction of both results in generational modifications that lead to wholesale changes in populations over time, EVOLUTION (likewise).
The confidence comes from a confluence of factors from multiple lines of evidence taken from genetics, biogeography, paleontology, etc that validate these theories, and the theory of evolution in general.
Read the thread. And no I'm not trying to be 'cute'.
It is a FACT that populations of organisms change over time. It is a THEORY as to how that comes to be. So evolution in a nutshell, is about differences, GENETIC VARIATION (something we can directly observe), how those differences have consequences that are either beneficial or detrimental, ADAPTATION (also something we can directly observe), and how the interaction of both results in generational modifications that lead to wholesale changes in populations over time, EVOLUTION (likewise).
The confidence comes from a confluence of factors from multiple lines of evidence taken from genetics, biogeography, paleontology, etc that validate these theories, and the theory of evolution in general.
Edit: to respond to the above poster's 'query'.
Yeah no I understand all of this. I was more or less thinking of more specific examples of things that people use to validate the more "contentious" aspects of the theory, like claims regarding ancestry and the origin of species, et cetera.
Yeah no I understand all of this. I was more or less thinking of more specific examples of things that people use to validate the more "contentious" aspects of the theory, like claims regarding ancestry and the origin of species, et cetera.
Retroviral DNA is a good one that showcases and backs up the tree of life as we currently understand it. Video on retroviral DNA.
The genetic work on primate chromosomes, specifically showcasing the fusion of the 24th-23rd in humans, is very solid evidence that we share a common ancestor with other primates. Video of Ken Miller explaining this.
There is also the Lenski study, demonstrating carefully observed and documented bacteria (E. Coli) which, over the observational period of 20 years, evolved the ability to digest a completely new substance that no predecessor was able to. They have enough documentation to be able to show the stages, and which genes had to spread through the population (surprisingly, it took several key mutations, some unrelated to consumption) and why before it was able to metabolize the new substance. Link to Lenski's experiment.
Retroviral DNA is a good one that showcases and backs up the tree of life as we currently understand it. Video on retroviral DNA.
The genetic work on primate chromosomes, specifically showcasing the fusion of the 24th-23rd in humans, is very solid evidence that we share a common ancestor with other primates. Video of Ken Miller explaining this.
There is also the Lenski study, demonstrating carefully observed and documented bacteria (E. Coli) which, over the observational period of 20 years, evolved the ability to digest a completely new substance that no predecessor was able to. They have enough documentation to be able to show the stages, and which genes had to spread through the population (surprisingly, it took several key mutations, some unrelated to consumption) and why before it was able to metabolize the new substance. Link to Lenski's experiment.
Theories regarding the origin of life, or origin of species are only related to evolution tangentially.
Not sure why people always confuse these two.
I don't think people confuse anything here--I think you just use the term "evolution" more narrowly than they/I do ("they" being the people you are talking about), or place stricter bounds on what is to be included in the general theory. There is no doubt that biologists think that those sorts of issues are evolutionary, so it seems perfectly reasonable for me to include them.
I don't think people confuse anything here--I think you just use the term "evolution" more narrowly than they/I do ("they" being the people you are talking about), or place stricter bounds on what is to be included in the general theory. There is no doubt that biologists think that those sorts of issues are evolutionary, so it seems perfectly reasonable for me to include them.
I hate to burst your bubble, but no. The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. It'd be like saying to an astrophysicist that he should know how the universe began before we can believe his theories on the movements of stars and planets.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Did Godel1 mention the origin of life? C'mon guys. He said "origin of species", which is coincidentally the title of Darwin's book, and to claim that it's only "tangentially" related to evolution is ridiculous. The theory of the origin of species is just taking the fact of observed evolution and working backwards. We had the theory of evolution (and OoS) before we documented the fact of it anyway; documentation of the fact (of evolution) is very recent. The evidence has been building for a long time, and the theory has become more and more specific over time due to new information; but the essence of it has remained the same for a long time, and it's fair to say that extending evolution backward in time is part of the overall theory.
Since it has been brought up & creationists are such wackos, how did the origin of life happen? A lightning bolt hit the ocean and created life? Where did the ocean come from? Where did the lightning bolt come from? The lightning bolt is charged electrons right (wow my Earth Science class was a long time ago), well where did the charged electrons come from? In the ocean's case it is made up of water. Where did that come from? Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms, well what made those and where did they come from?
I think you see where I'm going with this and I would like to see what the answer is.
At this point in time, the best guess is that it all came from nothing. I recommend watching Lawrence Krauss's A Universe From Nothing lecture to get the details.
How unlikely is life? Incredibly, it is rare, but as he points out in the lecture, the universe is very big and very old and rare events happen all the time.
I'm not asking anyone to respect my opinion. I don't care for the respect of people that are a serious threat to the educational system.
Soo... You only wish to debate (see the title of this subforum) with people who already agree with you on the issue? And you're saying the creationists are dumb?
Theories regarding the origin of life, or origin of species are only related to evolution tangentially.
Not sure why people always confuse these two.
Its because colloquially, when someone asks you "do you believe evolution is true" what they are really asking (despite terminological inaccuracies) is "Do you believe evolutionary theory is the correct theory for describing the origins of life and the origins of species".
Its a simple matter of thats what most people think the question is asking so thats what they address. I mean you yourself thought thats what it was asking otherwise your jab at creationists makes absolutely no sense in context.
On the other hand, when alternations are totally unpatternable, something must be changing it manually.
Exactly. Outside forces can influence a pattern and make it indeterminate. See radiation's effect on cells. Randomness implies lack of order which I'm getting the feeling that you're neglecting to take into account.
@Nevik Ecir
As to where water and oceans come from: The first generation of elements were formed in stars. The second generation of elements (higher valence shells) were formed by supernovas (the stars exploded). Planets were formed due to gas clouds and other things coalescing over time due to gravity, heavier elements on the inside, lighter elements and materials (silicates and gases) on the outside. The temperature of our planet was right for the formation of liquid H2O.
As for abiogenesis, watch this video for how it might have happened (and might still be happening).
@Zaphrasz, seriously, the best answer is not 'it came from nothing', that just sounds idiotic. If you're going to say that, at least explain that you don't actually mean 'nothing'. It could have been quantum fluctuations - which are happening all the time, and which the LHC will tell us more about; it could have been another dimension collapsing in on itself (ie, the result of a singularity/ black hole), but at this point the best option is just to say "We don't know yet".
If the simplest path for an allele to take is to mutate, then that path ought to be the path taken by that allele, as a rule.
If the simplest path for an allele to take is not to mutate, then that path ought to be the path taken by that allele, as a rule.
When an allele alternates between paths, then the simplicity of the paths must be alternating back and forth. Such alternation occurs naturally only in a manner which is in some way consistent and patternable.
Does it? When an allele is whacked by a radioactive particle flying off a decaying isotope, I guess you could describe the resulting mutation as "the simplest path for the allele to take" (although this is very idiosyncratic phrasing). But particles are flying off the isotope randomly; their direction cannot be predicted. So whether this "alternation" occurs is likewise random, depending on whether the particle hits or misses.
Sometimes, when many natural forces overlap, these patterns can even be complex, however, nonetheless, they repeat as long as all other factors remain undisrupted. On the other hand, when alternations are totally unpatternable, something must be changing it manually. That requires energy, something that cells don't give away for free.
But there's lots of energy floating around that cells don't have control over, from radioactive particles to simple Brownian motion.
Semantically, the term "random" is not appropriate to describe alternation between two states of preference. Random ought to describe unpatternable fluctuations in the extent to which a single state of preference is expressed. For example, shall the allele mutate in a minor way, or shall it mutate in a major way- if that were uncertain, it should be called "random". But if the allele shall mutate or refrain from mutating, that presupposes a change in the rules of its behavior.
Why? You give no reason why "random" is not appropriate for a situation in which everyone but you uses it. And you're presuming there's a hard line between quantitative change and qualitative change, but there isn't. The direction of the radioactive particle is a quantitative change, and so is something you should accept as "random". But it leads to an equally random qualitative change, the mutation or non-mutation of the gene.
If that's going to be called random, then everything built on top of that must be called into question and considered random as well.
If you believe this, you simply don't understand the philosophical significance of evolution. It naturally and automatically turns variation into a certain kind of order, something previously thought impossible.
And remember, randomness is not essential to the variation for evolution to act on it. This whole digression is really a red herring.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If the simplest path for an allele to take is to mutate, then that path ought to be the path taken by that allele, as a rule.
If the simplest path for an allele to take is not to mutate, then that path ought to be the path taken by that allele, as a rule.
Please, do explain. I get the feeling you're not entirely clear on both mutations and alleles.
However, you seem to forget that there is no such thing as a 'simpler path'. It's all chance. Either it gets hit by that gamma photon or it doesn't. If it does, there's a chance a point mutation occurs. If there does, there's a chance that it gets repaired and a chance that it doesn't. If it doesn't get repaired, it can change the working of whatever it's coding for, or it doesn't. If it does, than it can either be a positive, negative or a neutral change. If it's positive, it will be (most likely) selected in favour of, if it's negative it'll be (most likely) selected against, and if it's neutral it (most likely) doesn't affect the 'fitness' of the organism. It's that simple. There is not a simplest path for an allele to take.
And remember, randomness is not essential to the variation for evolution to act on it. This whole digression is really a red herring.
Not necessarily true. Yes, there already is a quite rich variation in most of the gene pools. However, for serious macro evolution (and for a lesser extent for micro as well), you will need mutations.
Not necessarily true. Yes, there already is a quite rich variation in most of the gene pools. However, for serious macro evolution (and for a lesser extent for micro as well), you will need mutations.
But they will not need to be random. If hard determinism were true, mutations wouldn't be random, but this wouldn't affect the results of evolution. Or you can think a little crazy and imagine an alien supercomputer that is methodically introducing variations into the gene pool one gene at a time. The trick is that the variation is not oriented towards a particular goal - but heck, even if it were goal-oriented, evolution would still happen; it just wouldn't be very interesting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But they will not need to be random. If hard determinism were true, mutations wouldn't be random, but this wouldn't affect the results of evolution. Or you can think a little crazy and imagine an alien supercomputer that is methodically introducing variations into the gene pool one gene at a time. The trick is that the variation is not oriented towards a particular goal - but heck, even if it were goal-oriented, evolution would still happen; it just wouldn't be very interesting.
Indeed, but if hard determinism were true, nothing would be random.
However, even that isn't what is important. What is is that every gene, hell, every base pair is just as likely to be mutated as the next.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
It's a statement of fact about the biology of creationists.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
I already know that your entire point in these threads is to troll people. I do, however, tend to give others the benefit of the doubt that they are here for legitimate reasons.
Hence, my question to him still stands, your answer notwithstanding.
Cf. every living creationist. I would say that, from an empirical standpoint (well, from most any standpoint, really), the claim that creationists have brains is much less subject to debate than the theory of evolution. Actually, the evidence that supposedly supports the theory of evolution is, at best, on par with the empirical evidence that demonstrably supports the claim that creationists have brains. Therefore, since (presumably) the reason for saying they have no brains is that they fail to agree with you on the theory of evolution, the fact that you then make a claim which is more difficult to defend, or, to completely rid myself of all potential worries, is at least as difficult to defend, you sort of just put yourselves into a pretty ugly loop. You could then actually use the same reasoning you used to argue that you have no brain. Unless, of course, you were arguing that for a different reason, and it is quite difficult to see any other coherent defense of your claim utilizing some other form of reasoning. So yeah, bad or bad. Yikes.
If you want to be silly and unreasonable, I will too be silly, but perhaps a little more reasonable. Let's not be silly here.
Want to defend this claim. Or anyone? I just want to see a defense... to see how it goes. As I said, I don't know too much about this. I just want to see where the confidence comes from.
I'm not asking anyone to respect my opinion. I don't care for the respect of people that are a serious threat to the educational system.
If the mods feel my comment was in poor taste, and deem it necessary to give me in infraction...fine. I'll accept it as crossing the line and won't let it happen again, but I thought it was a fairly minor jab at a group of people nobody should take seriously except by virtue of the "intellectual" danger they present.
Read the thread. And no I'm not trying to be 'cute'.
It is a FACT that populations of organisms change over time. It is a THEORY as to how that comes to be. So evolution in a nutshell, is about differences, GENETIC VARIATION (something we can directly observe), how those differences have consequences that are either beneficial or detrimental, ADAPTATION (also something we can directly observe), and how the interaction of both results in generational modifications that lead to wholesale changes in populations over time, EVOLUTION (likewise).
The confidence comes from a confluence of factors from multiple lines of evidence taken from genetics, biogeography, paleontology, etc that validate these theories, and the theory of evolution in general.
Edit: to respond to the above poster's 'query'.
Modern
Dredge, Evo-Chord, U/G Faeries, Living End, Something New
Spam warning.
Yeah no I understand all of this. I was more or less thinking of more specific examples of things that people use to validate the more "contentious" aspects of the theory, like claims regarding ancestry and the origin of species, et cetera.
Retroviral DNA is a good one that showcases and backs up the tree of life as we currently understand it. Video on retroviral DNA.
The genetic work on primate chromosomes, specifically showcasing the fusion of the 24th-23rd in humans, is very solid evidence that we share a common ancestor with other primates. Video of Ken Miller explaining this.
There is also the Lenski study, demonstrating carefully observed and documented bacteria (E. Coli) which, over the observational period of 20 years, evolved the ability to digest a completely new substance that no predecessor was able to. They have enough documentation to be able to show the stages, and which genes had to spread through the population (surprisingly, it took several key mutations, some unrelated to consumption) and why before it was able to metabolize the new substance. Link to Lenski's experiment.
Theories regarding the origin of life, or origin of species are only related to evolution tangentially.
Not sure why people always confuse these two.
Modern
Dredge, Evo-Chord, U/G Faeries, Living End, Something New
Thanks. This is exactly what I wanted.
I don't think people confuse anything here--I think you just use the term "evolution" more narrowly than they/I do ("they" being the people you are talking about), or place stricter bounds on what is to be included in the general theory. There is no doubt that biologists think that those sorts of issues are evolutionary, so it seems perfectly reasonable for me to include them.
I hate to burst your bubble, but no. The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. It'd be like saying to an astrophysicist that he should know how the universe began before we can believe his theories on the movements of stars and planets.
Godel 1 didn't, but the person he responded to did.
I think you see where I'm going with this and I would like to see what the answer is.
My MP Decks:
BKorlashB
WGSuperfriendsGW
GRBTorrent of SoulsBRG
UWDeath CannonWU
WUBRG5 Color AllyGRBUW
WUBMaster TransmuterBUW
How unlikely is life? Incredibly, it is rare, but as he points out in the lecture, the universe is very big and very old and rare events happen all the time.
So something came from nothing is the scientific explanation?
So science saying the universe came from nothing is just a big a stretch as saying a diety created it, imho.
My MP Decks:
BKorlashB
WGSuperfriendsGW
GRBTorrent of SoulsBRG
UWDeath CannonWU
WUBRG5 Color AllyGRBUW
WUBMaster TransmuterBUW
Soo... You only wish to debate (see the title of this subforum) with people who already agree with you on the issue? And you're saying the creationists are dumb?
Its because colloquially, when someone asks you "do you believe evolution is true" what they are really asking (despite terminological inaccuracies) is "Do you believe evolutionary theory is the correct theory for describing the origins of life and the origins of species".
Its a simple matter of thats what most people think the question is asking so thats what they address. I mean you yourself thought thats what it was asking otherwise your jab at creationists makes absolutely no sense in context.
Exactly. Outside forces can influence a pattern and make it indeterminate. See radiation's effect on cells. Randomness implies lack of order which I'm getting the feeling that you're neglecting to take into account.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
As to where water and oceans come from: The first generation of elements were formed in stars. The second generation of elements (higher valence shells) were formed by supernovas (the stars exploded). Planets were formed due to gas clouds and other things coalescing over time due to gravity, heavier elements on the inside, lighter elements and materials (silicates and gases) on the outside. The temperature of our planet was right for the formation of liquid H2O.
As for abiogenesis, watch this video for how it might have happened (and might still be happening).
@Zaphrasz, seriously, the best answer is not 'it came from nothing', that just sounds idiotic. If you're going to say that, at least explain that you don't actually mean 'nothing'. It could have been quantum fluctuations - which are happening all the time, and which the LHC will tell us more about; it could have been another dimension collapsing in on itself (ie, the result of a singularity/ black hole), but at this point the best option is just to say "We don't know yet".
Does it? When an allele is whacked by a radioactive particle flying off a decaying isotope, I guess you could describe the resulting mutation as "the simplest path for the allele to take" (although this is very idiosyncratic phrasing). But particles are flying off the isotope randomly; their direction cannot be predicted. So whether this "alternation" occurs is likewise random, depending on whether the particle hits or misses.
But there's lots of energy floating around that cells don't have control over, from radioactive particles to simple Brownian motion.
Why? You give no reason why "random" is not appropriate for a situation in which everyone but you uses it. And you're presuming there's a hard line between quantitative change and qualitative change, but there isn't. The direction of the radioactive particle is a quantitative change, and so is something you should accept as "random". But it leads to an equally random qualitative change, the mutation or non-mutation of the gene.
If you believe this, you simply don't understand the philosophical significance of evolution. It naturally and automatically turns variation into a certain kind of order, something previously thought impossible.
And remember, randomness is not essential to the variation for evolution to act on it. This whole digression is really a red herring.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Trade Thread
Modern
RWGBurnGWR
GUInfectUG
GRTronRG
UWGifts TronWU
URBGrixis DelverBRU
RGWZooWGR
Legacy
BUWTinFinsWUB
UROmniTellRU
BURTESRUB
GElves!G
GBPSIBG
RGBelcherGR
UBRGWDredgeWGRBU
UBAffinityBU
RBurnR
Vintage
UBGDoomsdayGBU
0Martello Shops0
GElves!G
UBTPSBU
UBelcherU
0Dredge0
Please, do explain. I get the feeling you're not entirely clear on both mutations and alleles.
However, you seem to forget that there is no such thing as a 'simpler path'. It's all chance. Either it gets hit by that gamma photon or it doesn't. If it does, there's a chance a point mutation occurs. If there does, there's a chance that it gets repaired and a chance that it doesn't. If it doesn't get repaired, it can change the working of whatever it's coding for, or it doesn't. If it does, than it can either be a positive, negative or a neutral change. If it's positive, it will be (most likely) selected in favour of, if it's negative it'll be (most likely) selected against, and if it's neutral it (most likely) doesn't affect the 'fitness' of the organism. It's that simple. There is not a simplest path for an allele to take.
Not necessarily true. Yes, there already is a quite rich variation in most of the gene pools. However, for serious macro evolution (and for a lesser extent for micro as well), you will need mutations.
Ok gravity is not a "law". It is a phenomenon explained by a law.
PTQ Top 8: 11/21/2009 Zendikar Sealed 4th
But they will not need to be random. If hard determinism were true, mutations wouldn't be random, but this wouldn't affect the results of evolution. Or you can think a little crazy and imagine an alien supercomputer that is methodically introducing variations into the gene pool one gene at a time. The trick is that the variation is not oriented towards a particular goal - but heck, even if it were goal-oriented, evolution would still happen; it just wouldn't be very interesting.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Indeed, but if hard determinism were true, nothing would be random.
However, even that isn't what is important. What is is that every gene, hell, every base pair is just as likely to be mutated as the next.