&
☭proletarian☭
Guest
Are Mutations Harmful?The vast majority of genetic mutations are fatal to the owner
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Are Mutations Harmful?The vast majority of genetic mutations are fatal to the owner
The flaw in your own argument is obvious.The gene comes out different, on a much smaller more chemical level than say your hand gets blasted by the x-ray machine. I'd also venture to say it usually comes out inferior. But when it does SOMEHOW work to the advantage of the specimen that specimen is more likely to reproduce than its competitors with the normal gene.
Yes, it usually comes out inferior. The vast majority of genetic mutations are fatal to the owner, if I remember correctly, and some percentage of the non-fatal ones are not passed on to the offspring. So assuming millions of random, non-fatal, hereditary mutations in the direction of increasingly more complex and diverse species is . . . reaching.
☭proletarian☭;1784373 said:Among those who negate the validity of Darwin and the science communities' theories on the evolution of man and our fellow critters, where is the point of contention? Is it heredity that seems unrealistic? Is it the natural selection (survival of the fittest) mechanism that seems like hogwash? Maybe the time over which it is claimed to take effect? I'm new to this board, but like the responsiveness of this community, and would appreciate some help understanding where the theory has gone wrong.
I find it a bit hard to believe that you've never heard people debate/argue about evolution and what the problems with it are, but okay. The primary problem people have with accepting evolution is the utter lack of evidence for one species changing into another, entirely different species. Despite all the time spent confidently asserting that evolution between species is fact, it remains mere conjecture, and some people simply refuse to accept something as settled fact without it actually being . . . well, settled.
define 'entirely different'
observed speciation - Google Search
Which part of evolutionary theory do you have a problem with? Modern changes in species, how life got here in the first place?Evolution may be fact. But there's plenty of denying it and arguing it until you can prove it, and right now, you can't.
Do you consider the following true? "We can watch evolution occur on a modern level. We have ideas on how life formed initially."
I can breed dogs and plants into any shape I desire and watch a version of evolution in my own lifetime.It takes far, far more "faith" to believe in the theory of evolution.
Than it takes to believe in Intelligent Design
To sound like more of an non-believer than I am, what do I have to go with to help me believe in Intelligent Design?
I don't even have to go any further to know what ridiculous arguments the right would bring up. They can't really counter science with stupid no matter how they try. But their arguments can sometimes be imaginative. To bad they can't point that intellect to actually "learning" instead of "denying". How many scientists have we lost to mystical mumbo jumbo.
First off, dogs can still breed with dogs or even wolves, the creatures they were bred from. Much better examples would be animals that have genetically "drifted apart into where they can no longer properly reproduce. Two very well known examples are the "lion" and the "tiger" or the "horse" and the donkey". Both can still have offspring, but the offspring is nearly always born "faulty". Either sterile or some other defect. That is why the equine offspring is called a "mule".
Next, you will have the right say, "But they are the same kind". Isn't that funny? The same "kind". They use that same silly canard to explain why Noah could have "millions" of creatures on a boat two thirds the size of the Titanic. The Titanic only carried a couple of thousand people.
To them, the same "kind" means that only one pair of "cats" that became lions, tigers, house-cats, lynx, panthers, cheetahs and so on.
The problem here is that this isn't 1882. We know through genetics, when species "speciated". Worse for the magical creationists, many times the data is supported by other branches of science.
All they have is one book written by primitives from the Middle East who didn't know to wash after wiping. They didn't even know what a "germ" was.
Then the right will try to put down "peer review" and the "scientific method" as if they know the meaning of either.
The worst part is the hypocrisy. They go to doctors. I can tell you now, you will not find a licensed medical doctor who is both respected and believes in "magical creation". Every single doctor will tell you that evolution is the foundation science for biology, botany and physiology.
The nerve of these people. Using the fruits of science and at the same time trying to stop it's teaching. They are terrible. Truly awful. They want to hamstring their own children, make them less competitive in this world, and all for the sake of ignorant and superstitious mystical beliefs. It's appalling.
Is it any wonder that the Pew Institute poll shows that only 6% of scientists will admit to being Republican? What a terrible indictment against a political party. They have no shame. They have "magic".
Well, good luck on that "magic" the next time a virus evolves and they need to go to a doctor. Otherwise, maybe the can "pray it away".
The next thing you know, someone will tell you having no occult beliefs is itself a religion. Oh wait. Someone is already telling me that on another thread.
Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
Speciation is defined as "The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones." The last time I checked, MRSA, while having adapted to be resistant to antibiotics, is still a bacteria. It didn't become a different species. So if you wouldn't mind, could you please tell me when was the last time we observed speciation, ie. the development of a completely new and genetically distinct species, in bacteria? And please provide documentation.
Thanks.
Evolution is like saying:
If a tornado hit a large junkyard and stayed there spinning for a billion years.
When the wind finally died down.
There could easily be a complete 747 jet airplane that had "evolved" from the scrap metal swirling in the air.
Metal doesn't self replicate.
Argument refuted.
It's like we've heard this one before.
Evolution would be a lot more believable if it's proponents didn't so often have to resort to such deliberate obtuseness to avoid addressing points.
Speciation is defined as "The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones." The last time I checked, MRSA, while having adapted to be resistant to antibiotics, is still a bacteria. It didn't become a different species. So if you wouldn't mind, could you please tell me when was the last time we observed speciation, ie. the development of a completely new and genetically distinct species, in bacteria? And please provide documentation.We can look at bacteria, which pass their DNA on in a matter of hours, and readily observe speciation.
I.e. MRSA.
Thanks.
☭proletarian☭;1784373 said:I find it a bit hard to believe that you've never heard people debate/argue about evolution and what the problems with it are, but okay. The primary problem people have with accepting evolution is the utter lack of evidence for one species changing into another, entirely different species. Despite all the time spent confidently asserting that evolution between species is fact, it remains mere conjecture, and some people simply refuse to accept something as settled fact without it actually being . . . well, settled.
define 'entirely different'
observed speciation - Google Search
So from what I can see after digging through your source's long-winded and boring digressions, your proof of speciation - which is supposed to support the theory of evolution from one species to another by random mutation - is some guy deliberately cross-breeding flowers? And at that, he produced a sterile hybrid, so it wasn't really a species, since it couldn't replicate itself.
When are you ignoramuses going to learn that the intelligently-directed breeding activities of human beings cannot, by definition, prove random evolution? It embarrasses me to even have to utter that painfully, blindingly obvious sentence to someone.
In the 1940's a fertile species was produced through chromosome
doubling (allopolyploidy) in a hybrid of two primrose species. The
new species was Primula kewensis. The story is recounted in:
Stebbins, G. L. 1950. Variation and Evolution in Plants.
Columbia University Press. New York
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.
What you are describing is adaptation.
That is not evolution
Yes it is. Adaptation or failure to adapt is part of evolution.
You don't have to believe in evolution, but you don't get to claim fiat on the matter.
Espeically when there are mountains of evidence that support it.
Sorry, but the debate is not whether or not things change. The debate is whether or not things change INTO OTHER THINGS ENTIRELY, and changing within a species does NOT prove change between species, so that tired smokescreen of "evolution is just change over time" ain't gonna work.
Show me a "mountain of evidence" in favor of change between species. Hell, I'll settle for a foothill, or even a speed bump, of evidence. Let's see it.
☭proletarian☭;1784406 said:Evolution may be fact. But there's plenty of denying it and arguing it until you can prove it, and right now, you can't.
right... so dog breeders and farmers don't exist, we've never watched a cell divide or observed the fertilization of a human egg, MRSA doesn't exist, and the Polio vaccine was never synthesized...
sure thing, boss
☭proletarian☭;1784406 said:evolution isn't testable,
It's observable
Millenia? Dude. that's why we use flies...
☭proletarian☭;1784406 said:What the hell word do you live in?
☭proletarian☭;1784406 said:
☭proletarian☭;1784406 said:
☭proletarian☭;1784406 said:Let me google that for you
At least as much as there is for evolution.
LOL? That's your whole argument?
It's okay if you're not embarrassed, Prole, because I'm embarrassed enough for you to make up for it. That was pathetic.
We can't watch evolution occur.
☭proletarian☭;1784409 said:What implications of evolution would make us uncomfortable? Christianity has no need for evolution to be false. .
So they recanted Genesis?
Speciation is defined as "The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones." The last time I checked, MRSA, while having adapted to be resistant to antibiotics, is still a bacteria. It didn't become a different species. So if you wouldn't mind, could you please tell me when was the last time we observed speciation, ie. the development of a completely new and genetically distinct species, in bacteria? And please provide documentation.
Thanks.
☭proletarian☭;1784418 said:and by the way, ID doesn't require any supernatural entity at all. It doesn't even address the supernatural. THAT actually comes more from its detractors.
So the intelligence in ID is natural? Were we made by aliens? How does ID explain the aliens?
Are you always this stupid?
I find it a bit hard to believe that you've never heard people debate/argue about evolution and what the problems with it are, but okay. The primary problem people have with accepting evolution is the utter lack of evidence for one species changing into another, entirely different species. Despite all the time spent confidently asserting that evolution between species is fact, it remains mere conjecture, and some people simply refuse to accept something as settled fact without it actually being . . . well, settled.
sure i have heard some takes, but i have not been in such a debate and didnt want to half-ass an opposing arguement then refute it.
i *theorized* that science is getting its own religious fanaticism about it. all of the claims of 'scientific fact' are oximoronic when put to your pick of the future or the scientific method itself. largely used by non-scientists radicalized against people who believe in god or question what their lab-coat imams had summerized simplisticly in newsweek.
speciation is a weak point if one refutes circumstantial evidence say in fossil records. plenty of speciation is observed in plants through selective breeding. plants, bacteria and fruit flies allow what is millions of years of change to be observed more rapidly. interestingly, when fruitfly males dont recognize females, as in one popular case study (with bald flies and fuzzy flies), they dont voluntarily mate. that is considered a type of speciation, but not the strictest... and those were bred from the same stock on the fuzzy/not fuzzy trait.
the science community does think of the speciation arguement as spoken for, perhaps, and
has moved on to other bits of genetics.
see? i didnt have speciation on my short-list. isnt there anything redeeming about fossil evidences and gene-maps that show divergence with common traits/genes implying ancestry?
The gene comes out different, on a much smaller more chemical level than say your hand gets blasted by the x-ray machine. I'd also venture to say it usually comes out inferior. But when it does SOMEHOW work to the advantage of the specimen that specimen is more likely to reproduce than its competitors with the normal gene.
Yes, it usually comes out inferior. The vast majority of genetic mutations are fatal to the owner, if I remember correctly, and some percentage of the non-fatal ones are not passed on to the offspring. So assuming millions of random, non-fatal, hereditary mutations in the direction of increasingly more complex and diverse species is . . . reaching.
Speciation is defined as "The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones." The last time I checked, MRSA, while having adapted to be resistant to antibiotics, is still a bacteria. It didn't become a different species. So if you wouldn't mind, could you please tell me when was the last time we observed speciation, ie. the development of a completely new and genetically distinct species, in bacteria? And please provide documentation.
Thanks.
It would be more appropriate to say "MRSA" is still Staph. aureus.
MRSA is genetically distinct from MSSA. I am not sure what more you want.
Dog breeding and farming, by virtue of having been done deliberately by intelligent beings outside the subjects acting upon the subjects, are examples of intelligent design, not evolutionary theory, dumbass.
We've watched cells divide . . . into two more cells of the exact same species as the original cell. So how does that prove evolution?
We've watched human eggs being fertilized . . . and developing into other humans, just as the providers of the egg and sperm were. So how does that prove evolution?
MRSA exists. It's a type of staphylococcus aureus that is resistant to some antibiotics that are used to treat regular staphylococcus aureus. But it's still staphylococcus aureus, ie. it's still bacteria.
Really? Cite me the last time anyone observed a fly evolving into anything other than a fly. Please show your work.