Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 77
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,365
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Freakazoid View Post
    I never assumed that you believed in Creationism. Hostility? If I'm not mistaken from my hours lurking this forum, are you not the user that claimed to be in medical school when defending archaic medical practices? If not, then I apologize. I'm simply appalled at the state of the medical education in your country where basic biology is amiss! I hope it's not representative of the norm.

    Ligase ribozyme catalyzes the ligation of two oligonucleotides generating a ligase ribozyme which in turn catalyzes the ligation of the other two oligonucleotides to generate the first ligase ribozyme.

    I don't understand how this is so contentious. It's essentially like the water cycle.

    If you're asking where the first water molecule (using it as a metaphor) came from then, that's not evolution and there's really no point getting into abiogenesis.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/20/12733.abstract
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5918/1229.full
    Well, it's not that I'm saying where did the first water molecule from as much as I'm saying how could the first water molecule have come if everything we know tells us a water molecule could not come to be without an already fully functional water molecule is already in place, symbiotic relationships and everything already present. And I do realize this is tip toeing the evolution/abiogenesis line.

    And I don't know what u mean by me supporting archaic medicine practices, but I'll tell u there's no way I would deal with my family by following the exact protocol we are taught. This a business, if u want to be a repeat customer that's ur choice, I would rather not be. This doesn't mean I reject modern medicine in its entirety, it just means I believe there to be a time and place for everything, and I don't believe synthetic lab made pills should always be the go to first line defense for everything. I feel that this is unfortunately the mind state they try to create in our system.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,593
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    Well, it's not that I'm saying where did the first water molecule from as much as I'm saying how could the first water molecule have come if everything we know tells us a water molecule could not come to be without an already fully functional water molecule is already in place, symbiotic relationships and everything already present. And I do realize this is tip toeing the evolution/abiogenesis line.

    And I don't know what u mean by me supporting archaic medicine practices, but I'll tell u there's no way I would deal with my family by following the exact protocol we are taught. This a business, if u want to be a repeat customer that's ur choice, I would rather not be. This doesn't mean I reject modern medicine in its entirety, it just means I believe there to be a time and place for everything, and I don't believe synthetic lab made pills should always be the go to first line defense for everything. I feel that this is unfortunately the mind state they try to create in our system.
    I don't understand how an English teacher knows more about biology than a medical student.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,365
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Freakazoid View Post
    I don't understand how an English teacher knows more about biology than a medical student.
    Hah, thanks!
    Last edited by nastynice; 10-26-2012 at 02:33 PM.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Shakedown Street, Japan
    Posts
    30,292
    vCash
    1500
    NN, I would say this much. It sure seems to me that (even though you made a disclaimer about this), the heart of what you're trying to get at speaks much more to abiogenesis than evolution, mainly because the thrust of it seems to pretty much be, "How did those molecules start self-replicating in the first place?" -- a question, as I understand it, which would be firmly outside the scope of evolutionary theory, and within that of abiogenesis.

    On the subject of irreducible complexity, I heard an interesting (old... from 2008) science news bit on the SGU podcast yesterday (ep 153) about how scientists had discovered a "clutch" mechanism in bacteria which enables them to engage or disengage the bacterial flagellum. Which basically is one more bit of evidence against the already well-debunked proposal that flagellum are irreducibly complex. Here's a great, quick breakdown from Ken Miller (a Christian and proponent of theistic evolution, fwiw) on why bacterial flagellum are not irreducibly complex:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

    And that was pretty much the flagship IC argument from the ID proponents.

    At the end of the day, all of this is really just about moving the goalposts. It's a continual effort to come up with any and every bit of "proof" of ID. But that's also exactly what tells us that what they're doing is not science. In science, you start with the question, then follow the evidence to wherever it may lead (even if it is to conclusions you weren't hoping for). In ID, they start with the conclusion and then try to bend and twist the evidence to fit it. That's the opposite of science.
    I blog basketball at Roundball Mining Company///Twitter: @denbutsu

    Atheists Of PSD

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,365
    vCash
    1500
    Yea, My ideas are definitely at least flirting with abiogenesis, if not more.

    And I agree 100% with ur last paragraph. To be honest, I personally feel that to be somewhat true regarding evolution. Maybe I'm ignorant and don't realize how unquestionabley true evolution is, but from what I read and hear I definitely get the feeling that people just try to plug and fit things to fit the evolutionary model. I don't mean this in a manner to discredit the evidence that backs it up, but it's just my observation. A couple years ago when I started to get interested in this I was very surprised at the amount of politics found in this subject, even straight from the mouth of professors. I had never thought I would come across sell tactics like such in science. I'm not sure, but this fact may have something to do with my skepticism about the subject.

    It's probably only fair to point out that I'm probably guilty of this too, as when my two cousins first told me about evolution I literally laughed out loud. I found it so ridiculously stupid, and although after that point I did buy it at one point, maybe that initial thought process is still floating around in my head.

    Although behe's arguments just seem nonsensical to me off the bat, I think i should read up a bit more on it just to clarify the ideas brought forth, and will soon check out the links u gave.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Shakedown Street, Japan
    Posts
    30,292
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    To be honest, I personally feel that to be somewhat true regarding evolution. Maybe I'm ignorant and don't realize how unquestionabley true evolution is, but from what I read and hear I definitely get the feeling that people just try to plug and fit things to fit the evolutionary model. I don't mean this in a manner to discredit the evidence that backs it up, but it's just my observation. A couple years ago when I started to get interested in this I was very surprised at the amount of politics found in this subject, even straight from the mouth of professors. I had never thought I would come across sell tactics like such in science. I'm not sure, but this fact may have something to do with my skepticism about the subject.
    There may be individuals who have a political agenda to promote evolution. But this is not why it has an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community.

    The reason evolution is one of the soundest scientific theories is precisely because of its predictive and explanatory powers. Scientists can say -- and have done so again and again and continue to do so -- "Based on a group of fossils X in this particular strata from this particular time period, and based on another group of fossils Y in a different strata from a later time period, if evolutionary theory is sound, we should be able to find, if we dig in a strata from a time period between the X and Y groups, another group of fossils Y, which will distinctly show intermediary characteristics of evolution from X to Y".

    And so they go dig. They don't know what they'll find before doing so, or whether it will confirm or deny their hypothesis. But time and time again, evolution is confirmed. There are NO fossils which contradict the evolutionary model.

    Not only that, the evidence from ALL branches of science -- genetics, biology, paleontology, geology, chemistry -- countless pieces of evidence from dozens of branches of science -- all of it corroborates each other. Before they were able to map genomes, they successfully predicted (with varying degrees of specificity) what should be found if evolution were a sound theory. And as genetics has progressed, all that turns up is more -- and never less -- evidential support for evolution.

    ID isn't even a hypothesis, let alone a theory. It has zero predictive power. There has never been a laboratory experiment - not ONE - which was performed to confirm or deny any scientific hypothesis based on ID, because it's not science, and therefore is incapable of being the basis of a scientific hypothesis. In fact, even ID proponents generally admit that if ID were allowed to be taught in science classes, there is no theory that science teachers would be able to teach. There's no "there" there. It's pure conjecture. What could possibly be written in an ID textbook? "Someone made all this." And that is it.

    NN, you seem open minded and sincere about exploring this stuff, which I'm glad to see, especially if you're in med school. Because evolution is the foundation of all medical science involving fighting harmful diseases. The HIV virus is so terrible because it evolves within the human organism, making it extremely difficult for medical researchers to find effective means of fighting it, for example. Without understanding that basic principle, they never would have been able to develop today's comparatively successful drug cocktails which allow many HIV-positive people to live long lives without ever developing full blown AIDS.

    That's why generation after generation, over the centuries, dogma always gives way to science. Because science delivers the goods.

    You're right that there is a lot of politics and controversy surrounding evolution. But not within the scientific community. It has almost entirely been manufactured by those who fear, resent or despise the implications that the validity of evolutionary theory have on their personal dogma.
    Last edited by DenButsu; 10-27-2012 at 01:34 AM.
    I blog basketball at Roundball Mining Company///Twitter: @denbutsu

    Atheists Of PSD

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,593
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    There may be individuals who have a political agenda to promote evolution. But this is not why it has an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community.

    The reason evolution is one of the soundest scientific theories is precisely because of its predictive and explanatory powers. Scientists can say -- and have done so again and again and continue to do so -- "Based on a group of fossils X in this particular strata from this particular time period, and based on another group of fossils Y in a different strata from a later time period, if evolutionary theory is sound, we should be able to find, if we dig in a strata from a time period between the X and Y groups, another group of fossils Y, which will distinctly show intermediary characteristics of evolution from X to Y".

    And so they go dig. They don't know what they'll find before doing so, or whether it will confirm or deny their hypothesis. But time and time again, evolution is confirmed. There are NO fossils which contradict the evolutionary model.

    Not only that, the evidence from ALL branches of science -- genetics, biology, paleontology, geology, chemistry -- countless pieces of evidence from dozens of branches of science -- all of it corroborates each other. Before they were able to map genomes, they successfully predicted (with varying degrees of specificity) what should be found if evolution were a sound theory. And as genetics has progressed, all that turns up is more -- and never less -- evidential support for evolution.

    ID isn't even a hypothesis, let alone a theory. It has zero predictive power. There has never been a laboratory experiment - not ONE - which was performed to confirm or deny any scientific hypothesis based on ID, because it's not science, and therefore is incapable of being the basis of a scientific hypothesis. In fact, even ID proponents generally admit that if ID were allowed to be taught in science classes, there is no theory that science teachers would be able to teach. There's no "there" there. It's pure conjecture. What could possibly be written in an ID textbook? "Someone made all this." And that is it.

    NN, you seem open minded and sincere about exploring this stuff, which I'm glad to see, especially if you're in med school. Because evolution is the foundation of all medical science involving fighting harmful diseases. The HIV virus is so terrible because it evolves within the human organism, making it extremely difficult for medical researchers to find effective means of fighting it, for example. Without understanding that basic principle, they never would have been able to develop today's comparatively successful drug cocktails which allow many HIV-positive people to live long lives without ever developing full blown AIDS.

    That's why generation after generation, over the centuries, dogma always gives way to science. Because science delivers the goods.

    You're right that there is a lot of politics and controversy surrounding evolution. But not within the scientific community. It has almost entirely been manufactured by those who fear, resent or despise the implications that the validity of evolutionary theory have on their personal dogma.
    Not to mention the fact that it's generally a testable concept for the MCATs...

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,365
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    There may be individuals who have a political agenda to promote evolution. But this is not why it has an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community.

    The reason evolution is one of the soundest scientific theories is precisely because of its predictive and explanatory powers. Scientists can say -- and have done so again and again and continue to do so -- "Based on a group of fossils X in this particular strata from this particular time period, and based on another group of fossils Y in a different strata from a later time period, if evolutionary theory is sound, we should be able to find, if we dig in a strata from a time period between the X and Y groups, another group of fossils Y, which will distinctly show intermediary characteristics of evolution from X to Y".

    And so they go dig. They don't know what they'll find before doing so, or whether it will confirm or deny their hypothesis. But time and time again, evolution is confirmed. There are NO fossils which contradict the evolutionary model.

    Not only that, the evidence from ALL branches of science -- genetics, biology, paleontology, geology, chemistry -- countless pieces of evidence from dozens of branches of science -- all of it corroborates each other. Before they were able to map genomes, they successfully predicted (with varying degrees of specificity) what should be found if evolution were a sound theory. And as genetics has progressed, all that turns up is more -- and never less -- evidential support for evolution.

    ID isn't even a hypothesis, let alone a theory. It has zero predictive power. There has never been a laboratory experiment - not ONE - which was performed to confirm or deny any scientific hypothesis based on ID, because it's not science, and therefore is incapable of being the basis of a scientific hypothesis. In fact, even ID proponents generally admit that if ID were allowed to be taught in science classes, there is no theory that science teachers would be able to teach. There's no "there" there. It's pure conjecture. What could possibly be written in an ID textbook? "Someone made all this." And that is it.

    NN, you seem open minded and sincere about exploring this stuff, which I'm glad to see, especially if you're in med school. Because evolution is the foundation of all medical science involving fighting harmful diseases. The HIV virus is so terrible because it evolves within the human organism, making it extremely difficult for medical researchers to find effective means of fighting it, for example. Without understanding that basic principle, they never would have been able to develop today's comparatively successful drug cocktails which allow many HIV-positive people to live long lives without ever developing full blown AIDS.

    That's why generation after generation, over the centuries, dogma always gives way to science. Because science delivers the goods.

    You're right that there is a lot of politics and controversy surrounding evolution. But not within the scientific community. It has almost entirely been manufactured by those who fear, resent or despise the implications that the validity of evolutionary theory have on their personal dogma.
    Well let me first say this. Everything you said is fair. Very fair. I can't hate on it.

    Before I get into any of this, I fully admit my lack of knowledge on this subject, so if I'm not using the right terminology try and bear with me, and if I am misinformed about something go ahead and correct me. I'd rather be made to look stupid and know the truth than be misinformed.

    Let me just kick a little bit of my perspective. I feel that things are presented in a manner to make them sound much more concrete than I believe they actually are. This is one of my main beefs, and makes me question TOE as a whole.

    For example, you mention "There are NO fossils which contradict the evolutionary model." I have heard this many times. Well, fossils are definitely found in layers or strata which are out of wack with evolution. However, when something like this happens, it is (I believe) generally accepted that these fossils are known as "reworked fossils", meaning they eroded from their original layer of sediment into another one. It kinda opens up the idea that well if something ain't jiving with what we predict, we'll just throw it into the "reworked fossil" bin. I'm sure there's more to it, so I'm not trying to say this as a complete cop out, but why isn't any emphasis put on this information when compared to your original statement?

    We sometimes find tree fossils penetrating multiple layers of strata. Well, due to this fact, it is then said that flooding, or something similar to, must have occured and caused this quick deposition of diff layers. Well, if a tree penetrating different layers is the reason we come to the conclusion, how are we so confident that this same type of flooding didn't occur at any given area? It makes me question how well do we actually understand these different layers of sediment, and how confident can we be of the knowledge we derive from it? If it weren't for these trees penetrating multiple layers, this whole concept of flooding causing rapid deposition of various layer seems like it wouldn't even exist.

    You mention human genetics being successfully predicted by evolution. I'm sure in many cases it has done just so. But there also must be cases where it has done the opposite. But science always seems to kind of push it to the side. Why do I hear time and time again that look at our fused chromosome #2, it is evidence we have common ancestry with chimpanzees (?) who have 24 chromosomes, yet the buck always stops there and they never say in the same breath, well look, we can't really trace it any further back than that, so notice the evidence against evolution? I mean, that's a fair question, right? If being able to trace genetic similarities counts as evidence for evolution, then its only fair that not being able to trace genetic similarities counts as evidence against evolution, imo.

    You mention evolution in medicine, which I've also heard many times. I don't believe this to be the case. When you give antibiotics, bacteria may develop resistance. From what I understand, evolution comes about from random genetic mutations which, if beneficial, can soon start becoming a dominant trait within a population. However, I do not think that bacterial resistance arises from random mutations. It is a direct reaction to the environment (in this case, the medicine).

    If someone is infected with a common bacteria, staph a. for example, and they are given penicillin, they will ALWAYS develop one of a couple modes of resistance. Maybe penicillin binding proteins will be altered, maybe the bacteria will produce a beta lactamase. Without getting into any detail, these basically render the drug ineffective against the bacteria. However, if we expect random mutations to lead to the evolution of bacteria, should we not expect many different methods of resistance to arise, rather than the same ones over and over again?

    To expand on that, if half a given population migrates toward the equator, while the other half migrates away, you will start seeing a difference in skin tone. This is a direct reaction to the environment. But, however many years later, if you get a guy from one group and a girl from the other and they ****, they will have kids. They are still of the same species. As is the bacteria I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

    There's a few other things I've mentioned on this forum before that I won't mention again in this post, I don't want to start sounding too repetitive. But they are all of the same idea. I get this feeling that with many things regarding evolution, science only gives one side of the story. I believe the STRENGTH of certain evidence is somewhat falsified.

    I don't know why it is so. I realize that for whatever reason there seems to be this kind of "anti-science" phenomenon going on with christianity (I'm not lumping all christians into this, as plenty of them happily accept evolution), and it seems like an unfortunate side effect of this is evolution has almost taken this kind of defensive stance on things. This defensive stance seems to start kind of injecting politics into science, making this seem kinda muddy at times.

    Let me make clear, nothing that I said above is me trying to disprove evolution. I don't think one or two little bits of evidence can prove or disprove a theory with the magnitude of that of evolution. Its just me pointing out certain trends I have noticed on this topic. Its just me pointing out the flip side, the b side, the tails side of the coin which TOE science never seems to want to acknowledge.

    As for ID/Creation, I agree with you 100%, you said it yourself and you're completely right, this is a conclusion looking for evidence rather than evidence looking for a conclusion.

    As far as my sincerity, I do hope it is so, but I am human, and like every human on earth I have bias. I wish I could wave a magic wand and get rid of it, but I can't. I try my best to be aware of this fact and just move forward.

    **and my apology to natepro, as I have gone completely off topic from ur original post. Its just sometimes when its flowin, its flowin.
    Last edited by nastynice; 10-29-2012 at 04:19 AM.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,365
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Freakazoid View Post
    Not to mention the fact that it's generally a testable concept for the MCATs...
    Speak ur mind bro, just speak ur mind. Stop beating around the bush and say what you wanna say to me. I got thick skin man, I can take it. Just go for it and get it done with.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,222
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    Well let me first say this. Everything you said is fair. Very fair. I can't hate on it.

    Before I get into any of this, I fully admit my lack of knowledge on this subject, so if I'm not using the right terminology try and bear with me, and if I am misinformed about something go ahead and correct me. I'd rather be made to look stupid and know the truth than be misinformed.

    Let me just kick a little bit of my perspective. I feel that things are presented in a manner to make them sound much more concrete than I believe they actually are. This is one of my main beefs, and makes me question TOE as a whole.

    For example, you mention "There are NO fossils which contradict the evolutionary model." I have heard this many times. Well, fossils are definitely found in layers or strata which are out of wack with evolution. However, when something like this happens, it is (I believe) generally accepted that these fossils are known as "reworked fossils", meaning they eroded from their original layer of sediment into another one. It kinda opens up the idea that well if something ain't jiving with what we predict, we'll just throw it into the "reworked fossil" bin. I'm sure there's more to it, so I'm not trying to say this as a complete cop out, but why isn't any emphasis put on this information when compared to your original statement?

    We sometimes find tree fossils penetrating multiple layers of strata. Well, due to this fact, it is then said that flooding, or something similar to, must have occured and caused this quick deposition of diff layers. Well, if a tree penetrating different layers is the reason we come to the conclusion, how are we so confident that this same type of flooding didn't occur at any given area? It makes me question how well do we actually understand these different layers of sediment, and how confident can we be of the knowledge we derive from it? If it weren't for these trees penetrating multiple layers, this whole concept of flooding causing rapid deposition of various layer seems like it wouldn't even exist.

    You mention human genetics being successfully predicted by evolution. I'm sure in many cases it has done just so. But there also must be cases where it has done the opposite. But science always seems to kind of push it to the side. Why do I hear time and time again that look at our fused chromosome #2, it is evidence we have common ancestry with chimpanzees (?) who have 24 chromosomes, yet the buck always stops there and they never say in the same breath, well look, we can't really trace it any further back than that, so notice the evidence against evolution? I mean, that's a fair question, right? If being able to trace genetic similarities counts as evidence for evolution, then its only fair that not being able to trace genetic similarities counts as evidence against evolution, imo.

    You mention evolution in medicine, which I've also heard many times. I don't believe this to be the case. When you give antibiotics, bacteria may develop resistance. From what I understand, evolution comes about from random genetic mutations which, if beneficial, can soon start becoming a dominant trait within a population. However, I do not think that bacterial resistance arises from random mutations. It is a direct reaction to the environment (in this case, the medicine).

    If someone is infected with a common bacteria, staph a. for example, and they are given penicillin, they will ALWAYS develop one of a couple modes of resistance. Maybe penicillin binding proteins will be altered, maybe the bacteria will produce a beta lactamase. Without getting into any detail, these basically render the drug ineffective against the bacteria. However, if we expect random mutations to lead to the evolution of bacteria, should we not expect many different methods of resistance to arise, rather than the same ones over and over again?

    To expand on that, if half a given population migrates toward the equator, while the other half migrates away, you will start seeing a difference in skin tone. This is a direct reaction to the environment. But, however many years later, if you get a guy from one group and a girl from the other and they ****, they will have kids. They are still of the same species. As is the bacteria I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

    There's a few other things I've mentioned on this forum before that I won't mention again in this post, I don't want to start sounding too repetitive. But they are all of the same idea. I get this feeling that with many things regarding evolution, science only gives one side of the story. I believe the STRENGTH of certain evidence is somewhat falsified.

    I don't know why it is so. I realize that for whatever reason there seems to be this kind of "anti-science" phenomenon going on with christianity (I'm not lumping all christians into this, as plenty of them happily accept evolution), and it seems like an unfortunate side effect of this is evolution has almost taken this kind of defensive stance on things. This defensive stance seems to start kind of injecting politics into science, making this seem kinda muddy at times.

    Let me make clear, nothing that I said above is me trying to disprove evolution. I don't think one or two little bits of evidence can prove or disprove a theory with the magnitude of that of evolution. Its just me pointing out certain trends I have noticed on this topic. Its just me pointing out the flip side, the b side, the tails side of the coin which TOE science never seems to want to acknowledge.

    As for ID/Creation, I agree with you 100%, you said it yourself and you're completely right, this is a conclusion looking for evidence rather than evidence looking for a conclusion.

    As far as my sincerity, I do hope it is so, but I am human, and like every human on earth I have bias. I wish I could wave a magic wand and get rid of it, but I can't. I try my best to be aware of this fact and just move forward.

    **and my apology to natepro, as I have gone completely off topic from ur original post. Its just sometimes when its flowin, its flowin.
    1st bold: I know I've slacked a little, I've been busier than expected lately and haven't been able to get back to this, but I do plan to shortly. After I finish with these Evidence Against threads, I'll switch to the Evidence For, so we will touch on (hopefully) all or most of the things you're unsure of, doubt, have questions about, etc. And if not, as I think I said, feel free to bring something up and I can start a separate thread for it.

    2nd bold: No worries. I'd hoped to get these out quicker to help stop it from happening, but as I said I've been busier than expected. But, discussion is happening at least, so I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,222
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    You mention evolution in medicine, which I've also heard many times. I don't believe this to be the case. When you give antibiotics, bacteria may develop resistance. From what I understand, evolution comes about from random genetic mutations which, if beneficial, can soon start becoming a dominant trait within a population. However, I do not think that bacterial resistance arises from random mutations. It is a direct reaction to the environment (in this case, the medicine).

    If someone is infected with a common bacteria, staph a. for example, and they are given penicillin, they will ALWAYS develop one of a couple modes of resistance. Maybe penicillin binding proteins will be altered, maybe the bacteria will produce a beta lactamase. Without getting into any detail, these basically render the drug ineffective against the bacteria. However, if we expect random mutations to lead to the evolution of bacteria, should we not expect many different methods of resistance to arise, rather than the same ones over and over again?

    To expand on that, if half a given population migrates toward the equator, while the other half migrates away, you will start seeing a difference in skin tone. This is a direct reaction to the environment. But, however many years later, if you get a guy from one group and a girl from the other and they ****, they will have kids. They are still of the same species. As is the bacteria I mentioned in the previous paragraph.
    You're getting two things confused here, I believe.

    Mutations can, and do, happen within a species without changing that species to another. Skin color, eye color, hair color, height, susceptibility to certain diseases... all of them can happen, but it doesn't make the people with those mutations something other than human.

    I can give you a personal example of this. Muscular Dystrophy runs in my family. There isn't currently a genetic test to see whether or not anyone has it, but my grandma and her sister had it, and my dad had it. They were all carriers of the gene, and yet were able to have children with people that were not (my grandpa, my great uncle, my mother).

    In order for speciation to occur, there has to be isolation for a significant period of time.

    A better example than the equator thing would be colonizing other planets. It's entirely possible that in the distant future we could find, terraform, and colonize a distant planet orbiting a different star. With sufficient time and no breeding between the two populations, you could see them become two different species that were unable to create offspring. Then speciation would have occurred. A couple mutations alone, like you see in bacteria or in people from different climates, isn't going to make that happen, though.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,593
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    Speak ur mind bro, just speak ur mind. Stop beating around the bush and say what you wanna say to me. I got thick skin man, I can take it. Just go for it and get it done with.
    Pretty obvious "bro", doesn't take a doctor to figure it out.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,593
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    We sometimes find tree fossils penetrating multiple layers of strata. Well, due to this fact, it is then said that flooding, or something similar to, must have occured and caused this quick deposition of diff layers. Well, if a tree penetrating different layers is the reason we come to the conclusion, how are we so confident that this same type of flooding didn't occur at any given area? It makes me question how well do we actually understand these different layers of sediment, and how confident can we be of the knowledge we derive from it? If it weren't for these trees penetrating multiple layers, this whole concept of flooding causing rapid deposition of various layer seems like it wouldn't even exist.
    As an aside, I ignored the paragraph before this because it is conjecture. Unless you have something more substantive than your suspicions there's no point addressing it.

    As for this paragraph, I don't understand what you're going on about. Are you referring to Polystrate fossils?

    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    You mention human genetics being successfully predicted by evolution. I'm sure in many cases it has done just so. But there also must be cases where it has done the opposite. But science always seems to kind of push it to the side. Why do I hear time and time again that look at our fused chromosome #2, it is evidence we have common ancestry with chimpanzees (?) who have 24 chromosomes, yet the buck always stops there and they never say in the same breath, well look, we can't really trace it any further back than that, so notice the evidence against evolution? I mean, that's a fair question, right? If being able to trace genetic similarities counts as evidence for evolution, then its only fair that not being able to trace genetic similarities counts as evidence against evolution, imo.
    This is utter rubbish. If you know that we fused two of our chromosomes, why even bring up the fact that chimpanzees have 24 chromosomes. Isn't it obvious that we lost one of these chromosomes when we fused two of them together?

    Here's a great video explaining this from theist Ken Miller.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oweUN-GaN3M

    Not being able to trace synapomorphies places them on a different taxa. How is it evidence against evolution? Methinks you need to read up on phylogeny.

    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    You mention evolution in medicine, which I've also heard many times. I don't believe this to be the case. When you give antibiotics, bacteria may develop resistance. From what I understand, evolution comes about from random genetic mutations which, if beneficial, can soon start becoming a dominant trait within a population. However, I do not think that bacterial resistance arises from random mutations. It is a direct reaction to the environment (in this case, the medicine).
    Evolution is the process by which organisms have descended from ancient ancestors. Mutation is simply one of the many mechanisms of change. The others being gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection.

    Antibiotic resistance is a perfect example of natural selection as the environment induces differential reproduction.

    A mutation does not always have to occur. Populations may already have the allele present in small frequencies.

    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    To expand on that, if half a given population migrates toward the equator, while the other half migrates away, you will start seeing a difference in skin tone. This is a direct reaction to the environment. But, however many years later, if you get a guy from one group and a girl from the other and they ****, they will have kids. They are still of the same species. As is the bacteria I mentioned in the previous paragraph.
    I don't understand why you have this notion that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    There's a few other things I've mentioned on this forum before that I won't mention again in this post, I don't want to start sounding too repetitive. But they are all of the same idea. I get this feeling that with many things regarding evolution, science only gives one side of the story. I believe the STRENGTH of certain evidence is somewhat falsified.
    I don't understand how you can say that you're not very knowledgeable about evolution and then go on to say that the 'strength of certain evidence is somewhat falsified'.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,365
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    You're getting two things confused here, I believe.

    Mutations can, and do, happen within a species without changing that species to another. Skin color, eye color, hair color, height, susceptibility to certain diseases... all of them can happen, but it doesn't make the people with those mutations something other than human.

    I can give you a personal example of this. Muscular Dystrophy runs in my family. There isn't currently a genetic test to see whether or not anyone has it, but my grandma and her sister had it, and my dad had it. They were all carriers of the gene, and yet were able to have children with people that were not (my grandpa, my great uncle, my mother).

    In order for speciation to occur, there has to be isolation for a significant period of time.

    A better example than the equator thing would be colonizing other planets. It's entirely possible that in the distant future we could find, terraform, and colonize a distant planet orbiting a different star. With sufficient time and no breeding between the two populations, you could see them become two different species that were unable to create offspring. Then speciation would have occurred. A couple mutations alone, like you see in bacteria or in people from different climates, isn't going to make that happen, though.
    ok, I guess what I was getting at is that in my mind there is a distinct difference between adaptation vs speciation. But I see now that in TOE it is all kinda the same. So in my mind it seemed a misnomer to call bacterial resistance evolution, but according to TOE it is indeed correct, because I do agree that adaptation and natural selection are playing a role in resistance.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,365
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Freakazoid View Post
    Pretty obvious "bro", doesn't take a doctor to figure it out.
    ok good, so now that it is clear to everyone you don't believe I'm in med school, and that I could give a **** what you believe, can we just move forward now?

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •