B
buffalo
Guest
Does design exist?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
ricmat
Guest
Let me educate you on the TOE.You might want to carry out a little research, there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. Also I’m not so sure what you mean by DNA version A? The DNA does not evolve into a new version of DNA.
The TOE states that random mutations take place in DNA, and then the beneficial mutations confer an advantage to the organism, which is filtered/selected by natural selection. THIS IS THE MECHANISM OF CHANGE. If you can’t prove that this actually happened for the cases evolutionists cite (e.g. Lucy to humans), then you have nothing but speculation. Well, I guess you would still have blind faith.]
Mutations = changes to DNA.
For the purpose of illustration, I suggested that “Lucy” had DNA version A. A baseline. A starting point for the discussion. Are you still following me? Mutations which occurred over time, I suggested we call “B, C, D.” Of course there would have been more, but this is just an illustration.
You have no original “Lucy” DNA (version A) even to start an analysis with, or to begin speculating upon. You have no subsequent “versions” (mutated versions of the prior versions) to compare with version A. You don’t have B to compare with A, or C to compare with B, or D to compare with C. Etc. What we do have is the DNA from modern man. You have NO TRAIL. You have at best circumstantial evidence, but circumstantial evidence is not good enough to say with certainty “it happened.”
I’m sorry you didn’t understand my example.
It seems to me that you need to actually define what you mean by “evolution.” For example, if you want to distinguish it from abiogenesis then you’ll need to be clear about it. Or if you merely mean “changes to lifeforms over time”, that’s different than “random mutations, plus natural selection.” etc.Oh and evolution is both a fact and a theory. However most people don’t even know what the word theory means in regard to science. So i tend to stay away from it, it just confuses the uneducated (I’m not referring to you).
I’m curious does anyone here that has a degree or above in a science deny evolution?
B
buffalo
Guest
One note - it is now understood that DNA has a “copy protect” feature which means that DNA fights to protect the DNA copy process from errors. It is self correcting. This limits even more the mutations that can get through.Let me educate you on the TOE.
The TOE states that random mutations take place in DNA, and then the beneficial mutations confer an advantage to the organism, which is filtered/selected by natural selection. THIS IS THE MECHANISM OF CHANGE. If you can’t prove that this actually happened for the cases evolutionists cite (e.g. Lucy to humans), then you have nothing but speculation. Well, I guess you would still have blind faith.]
Mutations = changes to DNA.
For the purpose of illustration, I suggested that “Lucy” had DNA version A. A baseline. A starting point for the discussion. Are you still following me? Mutations which occurred over time, I suggested we call “B, C, D.” Of course there would have been more, but this is just an illustration.
You have no original “Lucy” DNA (version A) even to start an analysis with, or to begin speculating upon. You have no subsequent “versions” (mutated versions of the prior versions) to compare with version A. You don’t have B to compare with A, or C to compare with B, or D to compare with C. Etc. What we do have is the DNA from modern man. You have NO TRAIL. You have at best circumstantial evidence, but circumstantial evidence is not good enough to say with certainty “it happened.”
I’m sorry you didn’t understand my example.
It seems to me that you need to actually define what you mean by “evolution.” For example, if you want to distinguish it from abiogenesis then you’ll need to be clear about it. Or if you merely mean “changes to lifeforms over time”, that’s different than “random mutations, plus natural selection.” etc.
T
tjm190
Guest
io9.com/5351093/new-study-shows-every-person-has-at-least-100-mutationsOne note - it is now understood that DNA has a “copy protect” feature which means that DNA fights to protect the DNA copy process from errors. It is self correcting. This limits even more the mutations that can get through.
The mutations are doing just fine
T
tjm190
Guest
We do not need to do any distinguishing- the theory of evolution does not deal with abiogenesis, so when a creationist brings it up they are going off topic, like it or not. The theory of evolution covers a well defined area- the only statement made is that speciation is caused by accumulated random mutations with natural selection ‘choosing’ what would and would not be passed down.It seems to me that you need to actually define what you mean by “evolution.” For example, if you want to distinguish it from abiogenesis then you’ll need to be clear about it. Or if you merely mean “changes to lifeforms over time”, that’s different than “random mutations, plus natural selection.” etc.
B
buffalo
Guest
I guess we can see why we are still human.io9.com/5351093/new-study-shows-every-person-has-at-least-100-mutations
The mutations are doing just fine
R
ricmat
Guest
Thank you for providing your definition.We do not need to do any distinguishing- the theory of evolution does not deal with abiogenesis, so when a creationist brings it up they are going off topic, like it or not. The theory of evolution covers a well defined area- the only statement made is that speciation is caused by accumulated random mutations with natural selection ‘choosing’ what would and would not be passed down.
Creationists (which I presume you to mean those who believe in God), and others often bring up abiogenesis in evolution discussions because one proposed solution for abiogenesis (but now discredited) was called “chemical evolution.” Yes, they can be discussed separately. But the issues are similar. Not enough time. Not enough stuff. Not enough probabilistic resources for blind unguided chance to do it alone.
Others here, and elsewhere, and in the press talk all the time about “chemical evolution”, the evolution of the universe, the evolution of the solar system, etc. Often the same argument for biological evolution is used - “Given infinite time and infinite resources, X can happen, and since we are now here, it definitely DID happen.”
I used to believe in the Star Trek view of the immensity of the universe and the immensity of time. Somewhere out there, there is a planet just like ours except the Roman empire never fell. Somewhere out there, there is a planet just like ours except the Nazis won World War 2. There are intelligent aliens on almost every planet. Life can be copper based, or silicon based, in addition to carbon based. Life is so inevitable that it must exist all over the place, and the universe is so large, that there is a place where everything one can imagine has, or will come about.
But that viewpoint, similar to the current “unguided” evolutionary viewpoint, is just not correct. For the same reasons. The universe is old but not old enough. The universe is big, but not big enough. Since you don’t want to read “Signature in the Cell”, why don’t you try “Privileged Planet.” Like Signature in the Cell, the science might be beyond you (or maybe that was Handrail?), but you would probably get the gist of things.
R
ricmat
Guest
So, going off topic here.We do not need to do any distinguishing- the theory of evolution does not deal with abiogenesis, so when a creationist brings it up they are going off topic, like it or not. The theory of evolution covers a well defined area- the only statement made is that speciation is caused by accumulated random mutations with natural selection ‘choosing’ what would and would not be passed down.
(we can discuss later) - Do you believe that the first living cell came about via unguided chemical evolution?
OK - back to evolution now.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.