The Relevancy of Mechanisms of Natural Selection

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Wow. Cool. Too bad this is all admitted by you and your source to be THEORY, and therefore not relevant.

You don't understand the scientific definition of theory I don't think.

Then as I have asked before:

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

Ever heard of Down's Syndrome? It's a genetic condition resulting from too many chromosomes. One could say someone with Down's Syndrome, through faulty replication, has a more complex genetic code than a 'normal' person.

There are many different kinds of mutations, including a wholesale doubling of all genetic information.

Did you know corn has more DNA per cell than you?

Is corn more complex than you?

-The Bible, DOES however, have documented evidence. Again, I am right, you are not.

Yes and the Koran has documented evidence of Allah. So what? Where's your physical proof of creation? Oh, that's right, the Bible. The Bible is it's own proof, correct? It's humorous that you've decried other's circular logic.

Again, not dealing with the complexity of genetic code. And, again:

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

That wasn't what you asked for in the begining of this thread.

Oh, contraire, you cannot even prove him RIGHT.

I've explained to you how others have repeatedly proven Darwin's speculations about the process of natural selection true but you choose to close your eyes.

It's interesting how you pick and choose what you wish to respond too.

It is also interesting that after I perfectly answered your original post in this thread, you decided you wanted to ask different questions. Interesting but not surprising.

Natural selection of genetic mutations happens constantly, all around you, but if you choose not to believe it, so be it. I'm not going to try to make you accept something that I would guess frightens you.

I have provided proof of the concept of genetic changes in species over generations over time.

Why don't you try my thread now?

 

[NewGuy]

Me:
Then as I have asked before:

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

Originally posted by Zhukov
Ever heard of Down's Syndrome? It's a genetic condition resulting from too many chromosomes. One could say someone with Down's Syndrome, through faulty replication, has a more complex genetic code than a 'normal' person.

There are many different kinds of mutations, including a wholesale doubling of all genetic information.

Did you know corn has more DNA per cell than you?

Is corn more complex than you?

Notice, you are talking about mutations, not natural selection. The difference is that natural selection is supposed to be the proven method by which the mutations produce things like us, right? Think carefully, you cannot have it both ways.

Yes and the Koran has documented evidence of Allah. So what? Where's your physical proof of creation? Oh, that's right, the Bible. The Bible is it's own proof, correct? It's humorous that you've decried other's circular logic.

Humorous? The Bible has made prophecy that proves its own validity. Did darwin do that? I think not. Did the koran? I think not.

You still havent answered my objections to your "proof". -Nor have you proved the Bible wrong. -Nor the validity of the Bible.


Me:

Again, not dealing with the complexity of genetic code. And, again:

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That wasn't what you asked for in the begining of this thread.

Correct! I asked for :

PROOF of the concept of genetic changes in a species over successive generations over time by the forces and mechanisms of natural selection and how it relates to human evolution?

Which, if your theory is only that : theory (and bad theory) with lots of holes, it isn't very valid relating to human evolution, nor is it proof.

Therefore, you have provided the fact that your theory is not fact but theory and not valid which makes MY point proven.

I've explained to you how others have repeatedly proven Darwin's speculations about the process of natural selection true but you choose to close your eyes.

Proof? Where? You have no PROOF. Admittedly from you and your text, it is THEORY. Part of the problem here, is that you and "science" equate theory woth proof.

It's interesting how you pick and choose what you wish to respond too.

Why, because it shows you have no proof?

It is also interesting that after I perfectly answered your original post in this thread, you decided you wanted to ask different questions. Interesting but not surprising.

No, you did not. Relevancy requires proof. Proof was asked for. Based on my questions showing your "proof" to not be such, but theory, it concludes that your "proof" is not.

Natural selection of genetic mutations happens constantly, all around you, but if you choose not to believe it, so be it.

Again, you are theorizing.
God happens all around you, but you do not see THAT. Care to prove that I am wrong and you are right?

I'm not going to try to make you accept something that I would guess frightens you.

:cof:

Fightens me? NOTHING frightens me. I used to BELIEVE the junk you are spewing. -Until I proved otherwise.

I have provided proof of the concept of genetic changes in species over generations over time.

So instead, why don't you try my thread now?

No, you haven't. Not even close. Why try YOUR thread? I just did the exact same thing I would do there here.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

from Newguy


I just did the exact same thing I would do there here. [/B]

Are you referring to your display of unintelligence?

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Ummm.....I don't care how good the source is if it still cannot prove its point. It doesn't even begin to adress HALF of the issues. If that is the best there is to make a fictional belief almost believable still without scientific proof of fact, then it isn't worth looking at is it?

It is worth looking at. Calling it fictional belief without even reading the material is illogical. The theory evolution is complex, however at least this book puts it into a human context. Evolution as a theory has broad implications. Asking for one source would not only be incomplete, but academically irresponsible (in doing a literature search, one must always confirm with multiple sources).

I still strongly suggest it to you and should note that the book goes beyond human evolution, but extends to why "races" and nations are as they are offering an environmental context rather than often misconceived notion of genetic superiority.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
It is worth looking at. Calling it fictional belief without even reading the material is illogical.

Not when the theory its self has been disproven. A book extrapolating it by way of FAITH rather than evidence is of no help.

The theory evolution is complex, however at least this book puts it into a human context. Evolution as a theory has broad implications. Asking for one source would not only be incomplete, but academically irresponsible (in doing a literature search, one must always confirm with multiple sources).

So.....then you agree it IS a theory, and it requires multiple sources. Fine. Still, ther is no way to credibly PROVE the theory is there?

I still strongly suggest it to you and should note that the book goes beyond human evolution, but extends to why "races" and nations are as they are offering an environmental context rather than often misconceived notion of genetic superiority.

Now THAT I can agree with. I understand your point. I don't disagree with the science of mutation nor the science of environment dictating mutation, nor the idea you present of environment dictating racial change.

What I DO disagree with is the concept that this is all grounds to jump a canyon and say that is how humans got here when it is a complete leap of faith upon no fact. As such, there would be no proof.

And that is what this was about .....Proving the science of this relevant to human evolution.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by NewGuy
You still havent answered my objections to your "proof". -Nor have you proved the Bible wrong. -Nor the validity of the Bible.

I didn't realize I was supposed to prove the bible wrong

Which, if your theory is only that : theory (and bad theory) with lots of holes, it isn't very valid relating to human evolution, nor is it proof.

Therefore, you have provided the fact that your theory is not fact but theory and not valid which makes MY point proven.

Proof? Where? You have no PROOF. Admittedly from you and your text, it is THEORY. Part of the problem here, is that you and "science" equate theory woth proof.

Again, you simply don't understand what the word 'theory' even means, and you've illuminated no 'holes'.

Relativity is only a theory, so I suppose by your (il)logic the fact that 100,000 people were incinerated by atomic bombs in Japan in 1945 isn't proof.

Theory does not mean 'no proof'. Quite the contrary, a hypothesis does not become a theory until a large amount of evidence is accumulated in conjunction with repeatable experimentation. In other words, proof.

But more to the point...

Notice, you are talking about mutations, not natural selection. The difference is that natural selection is supposed to be the proven method by which the mutations produce things like us, right? Think carefully, you cannot have it both ways.

This comment, more than any other, indicates that a.) you did not even read my post, or b.) are incapable of understanding my post.

I would explain how, but that would probably be a waste of time. Trying to explain to someone why they don't understand something is impossible.

Relevancy requires proof. Proof was asked for. Based on my questions showing your "proof" to not be such, but theory, it concludes that your "proof" is not.

Again, a failure to understand the meanings of simple words.

God happens all around you, but you do not see THAT. Care to prove that I am wrong and you are right?

The existence of a god is not the realm of science as it is neither provable nor disprovable.

I used to BELIEVE the junk you are spewing. -Until I proved otherwise.

That's funny. Still waiting on that proof though...

Why try YOUR thread? I just did the exact same thing I would do there here.

You're right. Why would I want to read more of your nonsense?

 

[dilloduck]

WOW a fundamental christian ? Does the concept of evoution frighten you? I can make "prophesy" of future events and they will happen. OH please don't try to prove the Bible is a perfect collection of truths. Men decided which literature to include and exclude. Were they perfect?

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Not when the theory its self has been disproven. A book extrapolating it by way of FAITH rather than evidence is of no help.

So.....then you agree it IS a theory, and it requires multiple sources. Fine. Still, ther is no way to credibly PROVE the theory is there?

I, of course, agree evolution is a theory as do most scientists. Evolution on a grand scale is not-repeatable under the current observation timeframe, which means that we cannot responsibly assert it is a fact. There are strong arguments to support evolution. Furthermore, if biological changes agreeing with the theory were observed over a large timescale, it could be proven a fact, but not within our lifetime.

Evolution has not been disproven, despite your claim. To refute evolution one would have to observe our changes over an extended period, hence, it cannot be currently, refuted. Same goes with Big Bang theory since we cannot observe our universe's beginnings, nor reproduce them.

Now THAT I can agree with. I understand your point. I don't disagree with the science of mutation nor the science of environment dictating mutation, nor the idea you present of environment dictating racial change.

What I DO disagree with is the concept that this is all grounds to jump a canyon and say that is how humans got here when it is a complete leap of faith upon no fact. As such, there would be no proof.

And that is what this was about .....Proving the science of this relevant to human evolution.

This is no leap of faith. Faith is acquiring widom in a manner beyond conventional reason, such a interpretting the Divine. I believe faith plays an important part in the world. The realms of science and faith are not polar, they simply are different methods of acquiring wisdom and knowledge. Evolution is a theory based on science and observation.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
I didn't realize I was supposed to prove the bible wrong

For one who claims he is right, that should be an easy task. -Expecially when you say it is circular logic and discard it so easilly in place of the religion you call science.

Again, you simply don't understand what the word 'theory' even means, and you've illuminated no 'holes'.

Really? Lets see:
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/scientific+theory

SCIENTIFIC THEORY: Dictionary Entry and Meaning
WordNet Dictionary

Definition: [n] a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

See Also: Arrhenius theory of dissociation, atomic theory, big bang theory, big-bang theory, cell doctrine, cell theory, corpuscular theory, corpuscular theory of light, Einstein's theory of relativity, game theory, germ theory, gravitational theory, indeterminacy principle, information theory, kinetic theory, kinetic theory of gases, nebular hypothesis, Newton's theory of gravitation, organicism, Ostwald's theory of indicators, planetesimal hypothesis, quantum theory, relativity, relativity theory, science, scientific discipline, supersymmetry, theory, theory of dissociation, theory of electrolytic dissociation, theory of evolution, theory of games, theory of gravitation, theory of gravity, theory of indicators, theory of inheritance, theory of organic evolution, theory of relativity, uncertainty principle, undulatory theory, wave theory, wave theory of light

Definition: a statement that postulates ordered relationships among natural phenomena

-And I have illuminated MANY holes -NONE of which you have been able to fill.

The proof is in this thread which is here for all to see.

Relativity is only a theory, so I suppose by your (il)logic the fact that 100,000 people were incinerated by atomic bombs in Japan in 1945 isn't proof.

Actually, it isn't. Showing step by step with proof to each step is a complete proof. Haven't you taken Geometry to learn what a proof is?

What you are observing with your example is cause and effect THEORY but it requires proof. As the example used has been proven time and again step by step you are comparing apples and oranges, as you cannot even provide evidence here on a self admitted theory.

Theory does not mean 'no proof'. Quite the contrary, a hypothesis does not become a theory until a large amount of evidence is accumulated in conjunction with repeatable experimentation. In other words, proof.

No. What you describe is proof of a particular part of a theory, not complete proof of the overall theory.

In the case you present, proving one single part would require evidence to make it repeatable. -You admit it cannot be repeated.

You also do not have that large amount of evidence since you cannot refute my pointing out of problems with the theory.

In addition, proving one small part does NOT make the entire theory correct.

If I have 2 wheels and handle bars, am I a motorcycle?

But more to the point...

This comment, more than any other, indicates that a.) you did not even read my post, or b.) are incapable of understanding my post.

I would explain how, but that would probably be a waste of time. Trying to explain to someone why they don't understand something is impossible.

Here let me help you:
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/natural+selection

NATURAL SELECTION: Dictionary Entry and Meaning
Pronunciation: 'nachurul si'lekshun

WordNet Dictionary

Definition: [n] a natural process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to the environment

Synonyms: selection, survival, survival of the fittest
See Also: action, activity, natural action, natural process

Biology Dictionary

Definition: The differential survival and reproduction of organisms with genetic characteristics that enable them to better use environmental resources.

Glossary

Definition: The differential survival and reproduc- tion of organisms with genetic characteristics that enable them to better utilize environmental resources.

the process whereby members of a species who have more surviving offspring than others pass their traits on to the next generation, whereas the less favored do not do so to the same degree.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry: mu·ta·tion
Pronunciation: myü-'tA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : a significant and basic alteration : CHANGE
2 : UMLAUT
3 a : a relatively permanent change in hereditary material involving either a physical change in chromosome relations or a biochemical change in the codons that make up genes; also : the process of producing a mutation b : an individual strain or trait resulting from mutation
- mu·ta·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective
- mu·ta·tion·al·ly adverb

So, enlighten me smart guy. One is a process and one is a result of the process. If you are so smart and I just "can't get the difference", prove the dictionaries, common sense, and myself wrong.

Again, a failure to understand the meanings of simple words.

Yeah. You keep saying that and prove yourself stupid each time.

The existence of a god is not the realm of science as it is neither provable nor disprovable.

I have proven it and can do so indefinitely. Just because you refuse to ACCEPT it is another matter.

That's funny. Still waiting on that proof though...

-And what proof do you accept so I can meet THAT criteria as well?

You're right. Why would I want to read more of your nonsense?

Nonsense? Come on. I would think it takes less faith to believe in a creator than this stuff. Again, you have not disputed my flaws with your religion.

I would also think you would believe in God, as He has the hard part. -He has to believe in YOU.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dilloduck


WOW a fundamental christian ?

Define.

Does the concept of evoution frighten you?

No. Does the concept of God frighten YOU?

I can make "prophesy" of future events and they will happen.

Cool! Who is the star quarterback of superbowl 300?

OH please don't try to prove the Bible is a perfect collection of truths.

Don't need to. It stands on its own.

Men decided which literature to include and exclude. Were they perfect?

Nope. -And the men you refer to would be which ones?

Are we talking about the catholics?
Wescott and Hort?
King James personally?
The Watchtower Society?
The Mormons?

Sorry, I need more information.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I, of course, agree evolution is a theory as do most scientists.

Then we all agree and I am correct and anyone who believes the theory is going off of faith as it is only theory as you have stated.

Evolution on a grand scale is not-repeatable under the current observation timeframe, which means that we cannot responsibly assert it is a fact. There are strong arguments to support evolution. Furthermore, if biological changes agreeing with the theory were observed over a large timescale, it could be proven a fact, but not within our lifetime.

Ok. Fine. It cannot be proven.

Didn't I say that?

Evolution has not been disproven, despite your claim. To refute evolution one would have to observe our changes over an extended period, hence, it cannot be currently, refuted.

Actually, having no evidence to make it fact makes it disproven. Simple logic. This is what you do to the Bible everytime you discuss this topic.

Same goes with Big Bang theory since we cannot observe our universe's beginnings, nor reproduce them.

You seem to forget.

-If Einstien could say that he could prove the Big Bang. -And he was NEVER wrong on ANYTHNG. -AND he could turn water into wine, heal from a touch, tell you an event that would happen in a far off land 100 years from that point in time, know your thoughts, walk on water, and was born miraculously, ------Would you believe him?

Would you need proof?

What if he said he was god?

If he could prove that, would he need proof of the theory specifically?

There are things you miss totally by only accepting what is sitting in front of you on the ground and beleiving only one linear pattern with no conclusive proof.

This is no leap of faith.

You just said it was by admission you are believing something without proof.

Faith is acquiring widom in a manner beyond conventional reason, such a interpretting the Divine.

Nope:
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF

I believe faith plays an important part in the world. The realms of science and faith are not polar, they simply are different methods of acquiring wisdom and knowledge. Evolution is a theory based on science and observation.

You do not gain knowledge through faith. You gain it IN FAITH through transmittal by Christ. -If you are Christian. If you faith lies somewhere else, the source of information can only come from 2 sources: other "angelic" (demonic) beings, or man.

By your statements, you also prove that evolution is a theory. Your admitted belief and summary statements also proves my point that it is a religion.

 

[dilloduck]

OK I will even give ya that one for now------christianity and evolution are religions by your definition----is your point that you have a religion that more--real? truthful?correct?accurate?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dilloduck
OK I will even give ya that one for now------christianity and evolution are religions by your definition----is your point that you have a religion that more--real? truthful?correct?accurate?

Nope.

My point was that evolution cannot scientifically be considered fact.

My secondary point which would follow is that my proof of science in the Bible warrants at least equal footing.

Then, my point would be that the Bible proves its self accurate and the true divine word of God.

As such, if prophecy proves the Bible divine, and it says we are created (with all the other proofs of its divinity), you cannot disprove that fact.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Nope.

My point was that evolution cannot scientifically be considered fact.

My secondary point which would follow is that my proof of science in the Bible warrants at least equal footing.

Then, my point would be that the Bible proves its self accurate and the true divine word of God.

As such, if prophecy proves the Bible divine, and it says we are created (with all the other proofs of its divinity), you cannot disprove that fact.

And you still haven't disproven evolution either.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
And you still haven't disproven evolution either.

You aren't worth my breath.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
You aren't worth my breath.

It's not about me. It's about your inability to accomplish your stated goal of disproving evolution.

 

[007]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Did you or did you not ask for the relevancy of natural selection to evolution? I'm sorry if you don't like that relevancy, but there it is.

If someone asked you the relevance of dead people to ghosts wouldn't your definition provide that answer? I think it would.

For the proof that the mechanisms of natural selection are indeed at work, I will get more in depth later, but there is cancer.

Cancer is the outcome of a transcription error in the copying of the DNA strand within a cell that results in the faulty translation of proteins within that cell. Transcription errors are proven. They happen about 10,000 times every time any one of your individual cells divide.

Any sort of transcription error that is not corrected by redundant transcription polymerase enzymes is called a mutation. If this mutation does not prevent an organism from reproducing itself, that mutation will be passed to its descendants. In those descendants other mutations will occur, which likewise if succesfull will be passed along.

The proof this happens? The fact that every year billions of people get a cold. When you get a cold your body develops an immunity. As your body is destroying the bacteria inside your body they continue to reproduce. At some point a bacterium will emerge that is sufficiently different from its ancestors that is has, through sheer chance and the mechanisms of natural selection, developed a new antigen-presenting agent on its surface. Therefore every year we have a new cold bacteria that sweeps around the world. The bacteria evolved.

The mechanisms of natural selection are the transcription errors in DNA replication. Over successive generations the result is a new species, one that is sufficiently genetically different, that possesses different properties.

That's natural selection. That's what Darwin observed. That's what led to his suppositions on the origin of humanity.


I can get more technical later if you like, but I'll need to get my textbooks so I can give you the exact numbers and chemical names.

With all due respect, if any of this gobbledy gook was worth the effort it took you to type it, you would be insanely rich for legitimately proving Darwin's "theory".

My thought is this, if you actually believe that stuff to be the true formula of the creation of life, then submit it to the world scientific community and see how far it gets there.

Until said "theory" can successfully be reproduced in a controlled environment such as a laboratory, then it remains a "theory".

Modern man was either dropped off here, or created. We did NOT evolve from an ape. NOTHING on earth has ever EVOLVED.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
Modern man was either dropped off here, or created. We did NOT evolve from an ape.

this is correct, modern man did not evolve from an ape.

It is my belief that this 'darwin' theory, or evolution, infers that man AND ape evolved from a basic primordial species. Differences in environment caused the branch off into primates and homo-sapiens.

 

[007]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
It's not about me. It's about your inability to accomplish your stated goal of disproving evolution.

We don't work this way as a society. If someone comes up with an outlandish claim say agaisnt another person as a legal matter, that said person is innocent until "PROVEN" guilty. The same applies to Darwin's "theory". Before anyone needs to set out on the tast of "disproving" it, it needs to be "PROVEN" FIRST!

It only stands to reason. How can one PROVE something to be false when false may be what it is? You'd just be digging on hole to fill another. Like trying to figure out if something is working properly when you don't know how it works when it's working properly in the first place. A worthless endeavor.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
With all due respect, if any of this gobbledy gook was worth the effort it took you to type it, you would be insanely rich for legitimately proving Darwin's "theory".

My thought is this, if you actually believe that stuff to be the true formula of the creation of life, then submit it to the world scientific community and see how far it gets there.

Until said "theory" can successfully be reproduced in a controlled environment such as a laboratory, then it remains a "theory".

I wasn't sure if it were possible, but you could quite well be less intelligent than newguy. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, you have a smaller capacity for reading comprehension.

I was not trying to prove evolution. What I have done is presented information of how others have provided proof of the concept of natural selection of beneficial genetic changes in a species.

A theory becomes a theory only after repeated experimentation agrees with the original hypothesis, not before. Therefore, by the admission of everyone in this thread who has referred to evolution as a theory, they have affirmed that it is supported by repeatable experimentation.

On further thought, I take one thing back; I should say you and newguy are equally inept at reading comprehension. There's really no reason for me to believe there exists a statistically significant difference.