What gives you the sense that all mutations are bad?
You must realize that life doesn't function perfectly. The DNA encoding our genes isn't perfect. The fact that it is mutable by nature (like sunlight, aromatic carcinogens obtained from the decay of long lost plant and animal life) should throw doubt on any faith based interpretation on how life was created.
He did answer the baleen question. Directly, comprehensively and technically.
An untested theory, not a "comprehensive" or "technical" answer.
Honestly, people, anyone here involved with game or fisheries management of any kind? Pat answers of that nature might fly on TV but in the real-world solutions are a bit more elusive.
But I think decievingly simple answers are par for the course here, hiding from demanding questions in abstractions and rehtoric is insidiously easy.
Your argument do not stand. The evolution is an exponantial process. If only one specie give ten new species every one million year, you will have an astronomical number of species in one hundred millions of years (10e 100).
That is a sensible answer---but I think that it would have to allow for exponential population growth among the species. I don't think that the Earth's resources and surface area are big enough to support the levels of trial-and-error that that solution would require.
What gives you the sense that all mutations are bad?
You must realize that life doesn't function perfectly. The DNA encoding our genes isn't perfect. The fact that it is mutable by nature (like sunlight, aromatic carcinogens obtained from the decay of long lost plant and animal life) should throw doubt on any faith based interpretation on how life was created.
I understand reasonably well where you guys are coming from on this, I really do.
But when you start adding years vs. number of species, vs the sheer quantities of "trail-and-error" to produce the genomes that we see today and the time involved to accomplish all this....and do it on one planent.....and do it in harmony and boidiversity suffiecient to support the odd symbiosis that we see in Nature---and not run out of resources in the process. I can't see it.
An untested theory, not a "comprehensive" or "technical" answer.
It's an answer that doesn't contradict any of the observable evidence offered us by the world. It's fine by physics, it's fine by genetics, it's fine by anatomy, it's fine by the fossil record. It allows us to cross-corroborate genetics with vestigial anatomical features, fossils and inter-species similarity. It allows us to do this without recourse to any scripture, Christian, Hindu or Yoruban, which are all utterly unverifiable, impossible to prove empirically, and only accord with what what we see by coincidence.
The world's more magnificently beautiful than you choose to see and I feel sorry for you. If your God's watching and He sees you choosing not to see the majesty and beauty of His creation I expect He's sorry for you too.
It's an answer that doesn't contradict any of the observable evidence offered us by the world. It's fine by physics, it's fine by genetics, it's fine by anatomy, it's fine by the fossil record.
It's a very, very general answer. The hard issues are set aside.
There has to be an accepted incidence of information-adding mutations, which would naturally produce a rough population size over the course of development. This shouldn't be hard to theorize. In the case of whales and other sea cratures, you would have to box this in somewhat in terms of what balances you have expect from the marine biome---number of krill, groundfish, etc. competing species, that sort of thing.
Apparently whales evolved from land mammals, who in turn evolved from reptiles, who in turn evolved from amphibians---the point being, we have(?) mapped the genomes of frogs---how hard could it be to genetically map a transition from an amphibian to a reptile, while still keeping the in-between creatures(the most)viable? If not frogs and reptiles, do it with another very simple organism, turn one into another, through information-adding mutations, and do it in spades, where each individual phase is the healthiest, and most apt to survive. if that is out of the question, do it by a rough gene count---something that would begin to get a handle on the numbers of "tries" and the populations that this would require over the "accepted" time.
Plug these steps into whatever information-adding mutation incidence is accepted, then continue extrapolating until you have a feel for population sizes relative to all other concurrent creatures competing for the same space.
What about "Hitchhikersguideianism", which says that the Earth is a giant computer designed by mice to calculate the question to the answer to the meaning of life?
Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?
Also, a question to the rest of you-
I sincerely respect the efforts of all here who try to enlighten dmz on the nature of evolutionary theory, but I must implore you to demand that he answer this question before you continue. After all, what if he answers no?
It's a very, very general answer. The hard issues are set aside.
There has to be an accepted incidence of information-adding mutations, which would naturally produce a rough population size over the course of development. This shouldn't be hard to theorize. In the case of whales and other sea cratures, you would have to box this in somewhat in terms of what balances you have expect from the marine biome---number of krill, groundfish, etc. competing species, that sort of thing.
Apparently whales evolved from land mammals, who in turn evolved from reptiles, who in turn evolved from amphibians---the point being, we have(?) mapped the genomes of frogs---how hard could it be to genetically map a transition from an amphibian to a reptile, while still keeping the in-between creatures(the most)viable? If not frogs and reptiles, do it with another very simple organism, turn one into another, through information-adding mutations, and do it in spades, where each individual phase is the healthiest, and most apt to survive. if that is out of the question, do it by a rough gene count---something that would begin to get a handle on the numbers of "tries" and the populations that this would require over the "accepted" time.
Plug these steps into whatever information-adding mutation incidence is accepted, then continue extrapolating until you have a feel for population sizes relative to all other concurrent creatures competing for the same space.
Douglas Adams of course was an adamant atheist who supported the idea of evolution
It's irrelevant, if you've read any of his stuff, you'll know it's hysterical, great writing. (Check out his daughter's video he did on iMovie over at Apple's site.)
It's irrelevant, if you've read any of his stuff, you'll know it's hysterical, great writing. (Check out his daughter's video he did on iMovie over at Apple's site.)
I've read all his stuff.(apparently you missed my joke, but I won't hold it against you)
If you like Douglas Adams you will likely enjoy Tom Robbins btw.
Comments
Originally posted by dmz
mind purge
What gives you the sense that all mutations are bad?
You must realize that life doesn't function perfectly. The DNA encoding our genes isn't perfect. The fact that it is mutable by nature (like sunlight, aromatic carcinogens obtained from the decay of long lost plant and animal life) should throw doubt on any faith based interpretation on how life was created.
Originally posted by Harald
OK!
He did answer the baleen question. Directly, comprehensively and technically.
An untested theory, not a "comprehensive" or "technical" answer.
Honestly, people, anyone here involved with game or fisheries management of any kind? Pat answers of that nature might fly on TV but in the real-world solutions are a bit more elusive.
But I think decievingly simple answers are par for the course here, hiding from demanding questions in abstractions and rehtoric is insidiously easy.
Originally posted by dmz
But I think decievingly simple answers are par for the course here, hiding from demanding questions in abstractions and rehtoric is insidiously easy.
I think you just summed up Creationism quite nicely.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Your argument do not stand. The evolution is an exponantial process. If only one specie give ten new species every one million year, you will have an astronomical number of species in one hundred millions of years (10e 100).
That is a sensible answer---but I think that it would have to allow for exponential population growth among the species. I don't think that the Earth's resources and surface area are big enough to support the levels of trial-and-error that that solution would require.
Really, I don't want to know what's wrong with Evolution, but what's right with Creationism.
Originally posted by billybobsky
What gives you the sense that all mutations are bad?
You must realize that life doesn't function perfectly. The DNA encoding our genes isn't perfect. The fact that it is mutable by nature (like sunlight, aromatic carcinogens obtained from the decay of long lost plant and animal life) should throw doubt on any faith based interpretation on how life was created.
I understand reasonably well where you guys are coming from on this, I really do.
But when you start adding years vs. number of species, vs the sheer quantities of "trail-and-error" to produce the genomes that we see today and the time involved to accomplish all this....and do it on one planent.....and do it in harmony and boidiversity suffiecient to support the odd symbiosis that we see in Nature---and not run out of resources in the process. I can't see it.
Originally posted by dmz
An untested theory, not a "comprehensive" or "technical" answer.
It's an answer that doesn't contradict any of the observable evidence offered us by the world. It's fine by physics, it's fine by genetics, it's fine by anatomy, it's fine by the fossil record. It allows us to cross-corroborate genetics with vestigial anatomical features, fossils and inter-species similarity. It allows us to do this without recourse to any scripture, Christian, Hindu or Yoruban, which are all utterly unverifiable, impossible to prove empirically, and only accord with what what we see by coincidence.
The world's more magnificently beautiful than you choose to see and I feel sorry for you. If your God's watching and He sees you choosing not to see the majesty and beauty of His creation I expect He's sorry for you too.
Originally posted by 709
I think you just summed up Creationism quite nicely.
indeed, and a typical religious mindset too.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
It's an answer that doesn't contradict any of the observable evidence offered us by the world. It's fine by physics, it's fine by genetics, it's fine by anatomy, it's fine by the fossil record.
It's a very, very general answer. The hard issues are set aside.
There has to be an accepted incidence of information-adding mutations, which would naturally produce a rough population size over the course of development. This shouldn't be hard to theorize. In the case of whales and other sea cratures, you would have to box this in somewhat in terms of what balances you have expect from the marine biome---number of krill, groundfish, etc. competing species, that sort of thing.
Apparently whales evolved from land mammals, who in turn evolved from reptiles, who in turn evolved from amphibians---the point being, we have(?) mapped the genomes of frogs---how hard could it be to genetically map a transition from an amphibian to a reptile, while still keeping the in-between creatures(the most)viable? If not frogs and reptiles, do it with another very simple organism, turn one into another, through information-adding mutations, and do it in spades, where each individual phase is the healthiest, and most apt to survive. if that is out of the question, do it by a rough gene count---something that would begin to get a handle on the numbers of "tries" and the populations that this would require over the "accepted" time.
Plug these steps into whatever information-adding mutation incidence is accepted, then continue extrapolating until you have a feel for population sizes relative to all other concurrent creatures competing for the same space.
Originally posted by HOM
I have a simple question... besides the Jewish Bible, what evidence is there for ID?
Really, I don't want to know what's wrong with Evolution, but what's right with Creationism.
Originally posted by rampancy
What about "Hitchhikersguideianism", which says that the Earth is a giant computer designed by mice to calculate the question to the answer to the meaning of life?
42
dmz-
Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?
Also, a question to the rest of you-
I sincerely respect the efforts of all here who try to enlighten dmz on the nature of evolutionary theory, but I must implore you to demand that he answer this question before you continue. After all, what if he answers no?
Originally posted by dmz
It's a very, very general answer. The hard issues are set aside.
There has to be an accepted incidence of information-adding mutations, which would naturally produce a rough population size over the course of development. This shouldn't be hard to theorize. In the case of whales and other sea cratures, you would have to box this in somewhat in terms of what balances you have expect from the marine biome---number of krill, groundfish, etc. competing species, that sort of thing.
Apparently whales evolved from land mammals, who in turn evolved from reptiles, who in turn evolved from amphibians---the point being, we have(?) mapped the genomes of frogs---how hard could it be to genetically map a transition from an amphibian to a reptile, while still keeping the in-between creatures(the most)viable? If not frogs and reptiles, do it with another very simple organism, turn one into another, through information-adding mutations, and do it in spades, where each individual phase is the healthiest, and most apt to survive. if that is out of the question, do it by a rough gene count---something that would begin to get a handle on the numbers of "tries" and the populations that this would require over the "accepted" time.
Plug these steps into whatever information-adding mutation incidence is accepted, then continue extrapolating until you have a feel for population sizes relative to all other concurrent creatures competing for the same space.
"Me smart cause use big science words"
very impressive
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Douglas Adams of course was an adamant atheist who supported the idea of evolution
It's irrelevant, if you've read any of his stuff, you'll know it's hysterical, great writing. (Check out his daughter's video he did on iMovie over at Apple's site.)
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
5th time asking the essential question-
dmz-
Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory?
If you are reading my posts, it should be apparent. There are some fairly straightforward questions being asked.
Originally posted by dmz
It's irrelevant, if you've read any of his stuff, you'll know it's hysterical, great writing. (Check out his daughter's video he did on iMovie over at Apple's site.)
I've read all his stuff.(apparently you missed my joke, but I won't hold it against you)
If you like Douglas Adams you will likely enjoy Tom Robbins btw.
Originally posted by dmz
If you are reading my posts, it should be apparent. There are some fairly straightforward questions being asked.
So the answer is "no," then?
Originally posted by dmz
If you are reading my posts, it should be apparent. There are some fairly straightforward questions being asked.
So then give me a straightforward answer. The question again (6th time) is...
dmz-
Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?