or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism - Page 6  

post #201 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
I mean isolated reproductively.

( Im not trying to be a smart ass...the clue is in the definitions of the words.)

he means that the organism can no longer reproduce with the members of the larger family of organism that shares his genes, except for the ones that have the same mutation/coding error.
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
post #202 of 430
post #203 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Matvei
Then the complexity of the eye is not an argument against evolution, right?

I think it presents some challenges personally.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #204 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Matvei
he means that the organism can no longer reproduce with the members of the larger family of organism that shares his genes, except for the ones that have the same mutation/coding error.

Well, IF this were to happen, then a new species will have emerged.

Now...all we need are some observable examples of this happening through random, natural mutation.
post #205 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
No it's not. The theory proposes and explanation of why the lifeforms roaming the planet today have been and will or will not continue to be successful, and how these lifeforms have come to possess their individual traits that have allowed to them to flourish or led to/are leading to their demise.

It makes no claims as to how everything came to be, only how life has changed and diversified throughout the millenia.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution

I don't see anywhere in the definition of evolution where it suggests to provide any insight to creation. That's the entire point. Evolution does not deal with creation. It deals with diversification

You seem to think that maybe someone is proposing that for instance one day a dinosaur birthed a chicken. That is creation. It is not, however, what the theory of evolution proposes took place in any way, shape or form.

The foundation treatise of the theory of evolution is entitled the "origin of species"...this is the origin I am speaking of. Does the theory of evolution speak to that subject or not?
post #206 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I think it presents some challenges personally.

Fellows

Does the idea of God creating everything present any personal challenges to you?

I do not ask to be a jerk. I ask because I truly want to know.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #207 of 430
if it is all possible through evolution, what is the "challenge"?
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
post #208 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Matvei
if it is all possible through evolution, what is the "challenge"?

Probability?

Something could be possible...but not very probable.
post #209 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, IF this were to happen, then a new species will have emerged.

Now...all we need are some observable examples of this happening through random, natural mutation.

Look here for some examples:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

A taste of what you'll find:

"Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348"
post #210 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Matvei
if it is all possible through evolution, what is the "challenge"?

Religious faith.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #211 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Probability?

Something could be possible...but not very probable.

What is the probability that a "change" that gives a better chance of survival or reproduction to an organism is passed to the offspring?

Pretty good, no?

Parent DO pass their genes to their children.
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
post #212 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla


Now...all we need are some observable examples of this happening through random, natural mutation.

I'm soooooo glad God gave me a brain. You make it so hard not to be rude. I don't enjoy being rude. Its not clever. It makes me look a jerk. But you are something else.

I know I shouldn't have posted. I can only apologize for my rudeness.
post #213 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, IF this were to happen, then a new species will have emerged.

Now...all we need are some observable examples of this happening through random, natural mutation.

While looking for examples to point to in regards to this statement, I cam across the following quote that made me chuckle. I would presume it will have the same effect on others who subscribe to the evolutionary theory.

Quote:
"What about the history of the platypus? Where did it come from? Why is it only found in Australia? All fossils found of it are essentially the same as today's living creatures. It certainly shows no signs of evolution. Its only significant change seems to have been to lose some teeth and shrink in size."
- Doolan, R., Mackay, J., Snelling, A., & Hallby, A. (1986). The platypus: a freak, a fraud, and now a new finding. Creation Ex Nihilo, 8 No. 3, 6-9.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #214 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Does the idea of God creating everything present any personal challenges to you?

I do not ask to be a jerk. I ask because I truly want to know.

I know you are not being a jerk.. I respect your question.

I do believe God Designed life. It may have been via mutations or not over time as I will not claim to know with 100% certainty.

I just think the word mutation and the word design usually do not go hand in hand.

As for to reply to what Grove said and he knows I love him btw

Religious challenges

I am anything but a fan of "religion"

I actually find some things about both ID and evolution to be a bit on the verge of religious.

I am more of an untethered free thinker.

You will just have to believe me on that

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #215 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
Look here for some examples:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

A taste of what you'll find:

"Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

I didn't find this anywhere in the link you sent. I will attempt to read this (but not just this moment).

Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

You are saying that biologically speaking they could inter-breed but basically they choose not too...social reproductive isolation? This sounds suspiciously like what we might call human races. People looking very different (hair, eyes, skin, facial shapes, etc.)...all capable of inter-breeding...some that "cannot be convinced to mate" with one another.
post #216 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
I'm soooooo glad God gave me a brain. You make it so hard not to be rude. I don't enjoy being rude. Its not clever. It makes me look a jerk. But you are something else.

I know I shouldn't have posted. I can only apologize for my rudeness.

But...evidentally...you cannot produce the examples. So instead let's divert and distract and go ad hominem. It is so much easier.
post #217 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, IF this were to happen, then a new species will have emerged.

Now...all we need are some observable examples of this happening through random, natural mutation.

I think this is where you got off step with MarcUK

Isolation within a group that has a unique mutation does not in and of itself bring on a result of a new species. It could produce another variety "that was allowed for all the while within the genetic makup of the original DNA"

This again was DNA which was already possible within the species.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #218 of 430
Evolution does not entirely remove the possibility that there is a god. It makes no such claims.

Why couldn't the "grand project" for god be to create the beginings of life, the possibility of life. He could have left the rest to chance and selective pressures.

It would not make impossible the fact that he could:

love us.
have faith that we will end up getting to know him spiritualy.
have faith that we would end up following a moral path and create civilizations that are just and equal.

The way I see it, the method by which god created life can be naturalistic.

In fact, it is much much more probable than a pure creation
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
post #219 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I think this is where you got off step with MarcUK

Isolation within a group that has a unique mutation does not in and of itself bring on a result of a new species. It could produce another variety "that was allowed for all the while within the genetic makup of the original DNA"

This again was DNA which was already possible within the species.

Fellows

So it is not really a new species...it is not really reproductively isolated (in a biological sense). Is that right?

It seems that if TRUE biological reproductive isolation does occur, then you do have a new species.
post #220 of 430
The eye question:



Recent experiments on the genetic control of eye development have opened up a completely new perspective on eye evolution. The demonstration that targeted expression of one and the same master control gene, that is, Pax6 can induce the formation of ectopic eyes in both insects and vertebrates, necessitates a reconsideration of the dogma of a polyphyletic origin of the various eye types in all the animal phyla. The involvement of Pax6 and six1 and six3 genes, which encode highly conserved transcription factors, in the genetic control of eye development in organisms ranging from planarians to humans argues strongly for a monophyletic origin of the eye. Because transcription factors can control the expression of any target gene provided it contains the appropriate gene regulatory elements, the conservation of the genetic control of eye development by Pax6 among all bilaterian animals is not due to functional constraints but a consequence of its evolutionary history. The prototypic eyes postulated by Darwin to consist of two cells only, a photoreceptor and a pigment cell, were accidentally controlled by Pax6 and the subsequent evolution of the various eye types occurred by building onto this original genetic program. A hypothesis of intercalary evolution is proposed that assumes that the eye morphogenetic pathway is progressively modified by intercalation of genes between the master control genes on the top of the hierarchy and the structural genes like rhodopsin at the bottom. The recruitment of novel genes into the eye morphogenetic pathway can be due to at least two different genetic mechanisms, gene duplication and enhancer fusion.In tracing back the evolution of eyes beyond bilaterians, we find highly developed eyes in some box-jellyfish as well as in some Hydrozoans. In Hydrozoans the same orthologous six genes (six1 and six3) are required for eye regeneration as in planarians, and in the box jellyfish Tripedalia a pax B gene, which may be a precursor of Pax6, was found to be expressed in the eyes. In contrast to the adults, which have highly evolved eyes, the Planula larva of Tripedalia has single- celled photoreceptors similar to some unicellular protists.For the origin of photoreceptor cells in metazoa, I propose two hypotheses, one based on cellular differentiation and a more speculative one based on symbiosis. The former assumes that photoreceptor cells originated from a colonial protist in which all the cells were photosensitive and subsequent cellular differentiation to give rise to photoreceptor cells. The symbiont hypothesis, which I call the Russian doll model, assumes that photosensitivity arose first in photosynthetic cyanobacteria that were subsequently taken up into red algae as primary chloroplasts. The red algae in turn were taken up by dinoflagellates as secondary chloroplasts and in some species evolved into the most sophisticated eye organelles, as found, for example, in some dinoflagellates like Erythropsis and Warnovia, which lack chloroplasts. Because dinoflagellates are commonly found as symbionts in cnidarians, the dinoflagellates may have transferred their photoreceptor genes to cnidarians. In cnidarians such as Tripedalia the step from photoreceptor organelles to multicellular eyes has occurred. These two hypotheses, the cellular differentiation and the symbiont hypothesis, are not mutually exclusive and are the subject of further investigations.

From:
Gehring, WJ. J Hered 96:3, 171-84 (2005)
"New perspectives on eye development and the evolution of eyes and photoreceptors."
post #221 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Matvei
The way I see it, the method by which god created life can naturalistic.

In fact, it is much much more probable than a pure creation

Why do you suppose that? It seems that both are equally probable...not one more than the other.
post #222 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You are saying that biologically speaking they could inter-breed but basically they choose not too...social reproductive isolation? This sounds suspiciously like what we might call human races. People looking very different (hair, eyes, skin, facial shapes, etc.)...all capable of inter-breeding...some that "cannot be convinced to mate" with one another.

Bingo.

And those behaviors amongst humans are what has led to blacks being more suseptible to sickle cell anemia than whites, blonde hair more prevalent amongst Swedes than the Japanese, and Europeans being taller on average than the Chinese.

Through relative, but not total, geographic isolation each has developed certain genetic idiosynracies. In essence, they have evolved to be slightly different than the original ancestor they share, which we all know was Adam.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #223 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Bingo.

And those behaviors amongst humans are what has led to blacks being more suseptible to sickle cell anemia than whites, blonde hair more prevalent amongst Swedes than the Japanese, and Europeans being taller on average than the Chinese.

Through relative, but not total, geographic isolation each has developed certain genetic idiosynracies. In essence, they have evolved to be slightly different than the original ancestor they share, which we all know was Adam.

correct me if I have this wrongly understood but this is indeed an instance of microevolution not macroevolution.

I will grant you that microevolution does take place. It works within the genetic potential of what is already coded within the genome of given species.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #224 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
correct me if I have this wrongly understood but this is indeed an instance of microevolution not macroevolution.

I will grant you that microevolution does take place. It works within the genetic potential of what is already coded within the genome of given species.

Fellows

Tower of Babel?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #225 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Why do you suppose that? It seems that both are equally probable...not one more than the other.

mountains of evidence points to the fact that we have a common ancestor, and that organisms evolve according to selective pressures interacting with gene expression and reproduction.

"pop-out" creation flies in the face of all that evidence.
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
post #226 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So it is not really a new species...it is not really reproductively isolated (in a biological sense). Is that right?

It seems that if TRUE biological reproductive isolation does occur, then you do have a new species.

I think he was refering to location not ability to mate.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #227 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
correct me if I have this wrongly understood but this is indeed an instance of microevolution not macroevolution.

I will grant you that microevolution does take place. It works within the genetic potential of what is already coded within the genome of given species.

Fellows

But now what you get into is trying to argue that evolution is possible AND impossible at the same time.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #228 of 430
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But...evidentally...you cannot produce the examples. So instead let's divert and distract.


Carson already gave you a whole plethora of examples in the link. Yet funnily enough, you cant read the page even though it is fundamental to the argument you present.

For Gods sake, just read the page, if its important enough for you to ask the question, at least have the decency to review the evidence when presented with it, before you carry on making false statements by not reading the evidence.



Quote:

You are saying that biologically speaking they could inter-breed but basically they choose not too...social reproductive isolation? This sounds suspiciously like what we might call human races. People looking very different (hair, eyes, skin, facial shapes, etc.)...all capable of inter-breeding...some that "cannot be convinced to mate" with one another.

hahaha, I wish I was as good a comedian.
post #229 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Tower of Babel?

That was already mentioned...and that Biblical text doesn't necessarily suggest the instant creation of new races...merely languages. It might have been that of course...but the text doesn't really say that.

Still and all, human races are not really different species (although I must admit there are likely some of the white supremist ilk that probably think this). And, well, Lawyers/politicians...but I digress (and hopefully ad some levity...things were getting tense in here.)
post #230 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I didn't find this anywhere in the link you sent. I will attempt to read this (but not just this moment).



You are saying that biologically speaking they could inter-breed but basically they choose not too...social reproductive isolation? This sounds suspiciously like what we might call human races. People looking very different (hair, eyes, skin, facial shapes, etc.)...all capable of inter-breeding...some that "cannot be convinced to mate" with one another.

It was off the link at the top right discussing additional sources other than listed on that first page.

I beleive what they were trying to say is that the fish may not be so different that they couldn't produce viable offspring. However, their mating rituals have changed to the degree that they are no longer interested in the other speicies. This gets into the difficulties of what is and is not a speices. Most accept a definition of an reproductively isolated group of organisms, which these fish are. This is a bigger issue in the owrld of botany. I was very surprised to learn that you can successfully cross orchids from not just differerent species, but different genera. These plants never interbreed in nature, but they can make viable reproductive hybrids when crossed by humans.
post #231 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
But now what you get into is trying to argue that evolution is possible AND impossible at the same time.

I never said it was impossible.

I said I have never seen an example that suits my intellectual integrity of a case of actual macroevolution.

I think we all agree that microevolution is a FACT.

We see it with each new generation.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #232 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That was already mentioned...and that Biblical text doesn't necessarily suggest the instant creation of new races...merely languages. It might have been that of course...but the text doesn't really say that.

Religion evolves?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #233 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I think he was refering to location not ability to mate.

Fellows

But even if there is geographical reproductive isolation, this does not imply a new species. Does it?
post #234 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
But now what you get into is trying to argue that evolution is possible AND impossible at the same time.

No he's not.
post #235 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But even if there is geographical reproductive isolation, this does not imply a new species. Does it?

That depends on what given person A says A1.

Context.

If they imply that a new species is created by all means let's take a look.

otherwise we are speaking in terms of microevolution

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #236 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I never said it was impossible.

I said I have never seen an example that suits my intellectual integrity of a case of actual macroevolution.

I think we all agree that microevolution is a FACT.

We see it with each new generation.

Fellows

I'm not saying you personally claimed one possible and the other impossible. It was a "you" in the plural sense.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #237 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
hahaha, I wish I was as good a comedian.

Is that an argument?
post #238 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Religion evolves?

Not even sure what your question is.
post #239 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
If they imply that a new species is created by all means let's take a look.

otherwise we are speaking in terms of microevolution

I think we're in agreement here.
post #240 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
It was off the link at the top right discussing additional sources other than listed on that first page.

I will check this out. With the links, there is much to read and I want to give it its due in that regard.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism