Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: 1MoreRep on February 13, 2009, 08:17:58 AM
-
Few Things I would like to share :)
1. Can any1 explain to me how the evolution process started (i.e did it start from nothing or did it start from something that existed) ?
2. Can any1 show me evidence of DNA evolution (i.e by changing or increasing information in the DNA) ?
3. The most likely explanation of the fossils discovered that they are from different species of animals at different development stages (i.e some may be young / older extinct apes , etc)
4. Humans share some of its DNA with other living things such as apes, banana, etc (it doesn't mean humans evolved from apes or bananas, but means all living things share DNA info)
6. many scientists came to understand that not only a single cell, but even a single functional protein, is far too complex to be produced by chance.
5. Darwin Theory of Evolution is not an established fact
;)
-
Derek anthony is a fag
-
Few Things I would like to share :)
1. Can any1 explain to me how the evolution process started (i.e did it start from nothing or did it start from something that existed) ?
2. Can any1 show me evidence of DNA evolution (i.e by changing or increasing information in the DNA) ?
3. The most likely explanation of the fossils discovered that they are from different species of animals at different development stages (i.e some may be young / older extinct apes , etc)
4. Humans share some of its DNA with other living things such as apes, banana, etc (it doesn't mean humans evolved from apes or bananas, but means all living things share DNA info)
6. many scientists came to understand that not only a single cell, but even a single functional protein, is far too complex to be produced by chance.
5. Darwin Theory of Evolution is not an established fact
;)
first off do you know anything about evolution, genetics, palentology?
second that vidoe is from a creationist site and is proven false, the flagellum is easily explained. Evolution doesnt deal with origins, and the darwin theory of evolution which includes natural adaptation etc.. is a fact.
A theory is a collection of facts. If you would like i can start posting evidence, but i think you should educate yourself first before you hang yourself with micheal behe and the rest of the retards.
"6. many scientists came to understand that not only a single cell, but even a single functional protein, is far too complex to be produced by chance."
first off who says chance has anything to do with it, secondly who are these scientists.
-
Hopefully neoseminole responds as he as dealt with this argument quite a few times.
-
first off do you know anything about evolution, genetics, palentology?
second that vidoe is from a creationist site and is proven false, the flagellum is easily explained. Evolution doesnt deal with origins, and the darwin theory of evolution which includes natural adaptation etc.. is a fact.
A theory is a collection of facts. If you would like i can start posting evidence, but i think you should educate yourself first before you hang yourself with micheal behe and the rest of the retards.
"6. many scientists came to understand that not only a single cell, but even a single functional protein, is far too complex to be produced by chance."
first off who says chance has anything to do with it, secondly who are these scientists.
In response :)
1. Yes I have some knowledge on the subject
2. I used this clip just to describe the mystery of the flagellum (i dont care if they are creationist or atheist, as long as they give factual description of the observed subject)
3. Explanation of the evolution of the flagellum is based on theory not fact (i.e through the exploration of possabilities and probability of the evolution by the forming of the type 3 secretory, which comes by chance!)
4. Of course evolution deals with origins, hence the title of Charles Darwin's book, which is called "The origin of species" (i just want an explanation of the root of the tree of life using the theory of evolution)
5. fact or theory? its still in dispute, hence its not established fact, and i agree a theory is an explanation of the observed facts.
6. Theory of evolution is based on chance and probabilities
-
You know there is a religion board.
-
You know there is a religion board.
Shit....even a fucking pet board. ::)
-
Proteins, viruses, bacteria, people, etc... can mutate or adapt to their environments.
Evolution and creationism don't necessarily contradict each other. People are pretty myopic on this and would rather believe God micromanages every atom in the universe. It's like the retards thanking God for winning a football game, LOL! That's right, he's watching and was helping some nitwit win the superbowl while millions of people starve to death.
I tend to think of him as a 'Prime mover', not a thing that needs worshiping.
-
Few Things I would like to share :)
1. Can any1 explain to me how the evolution process started (i.e did it start from nothing or did it start from something that existed) ?
2. Can any1 show me evidence of DNA evolution (i.e by changing or increasing information in the DNA) ?
3. The most likely explanation of the fossils discovered that they are from different species of animals at different development stages (i.e some may be young / older extinct apes , etc)
4. Humans share some of its DNA with other living things such as apes, banana, etc (it doesn't mean humans evolved from apes or bananas, but means all living things share DNA info)
6. many scientists came to understand that not only a single cell, but even a single functional protein, is far too complex to be produced by chance.
5. Darwin Theory of Evolution is not an established fact
;)
1. Evolution started with molecular evolution, various molecules binding and combining based on their environments and properties. After a while they became more and more complex, and in the right environment and circumstances, they became organic molecules and later cells. So basically it started with something that already existed (matter).
2. The claims about "increasing information" are very problematic because most people have a false concept of "information". In short, Evolution actually decreases information but increases specificity. As far as more variety and specificity goes:
* increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
* increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
* novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
* novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
Richard Dawkins wrote a long article about the definition of "information" in regard to Evolution here:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
3. The fossils found comprise of THOUSANDS of specimens consisting of all sorts of varieties of certain species at a wide variety of ages. There are so many lineages known, it would be absolutely impossible for it to be incorrect. We have full lineages set out in the fossil record of entire families of species, and countless specimens of each species.
4. Why else would humans share DNA with other species UNLESS we had a common ancestor? THe more we have in common, the more recent the ancestor. Just like with human families. I'm more similar to my brother than my cousin because our most recent ancestors is our mother and father, opposed to grandfather and grandmother.
5. Evolution IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT. Do some research!!!
6. Scientists already know how cells and proteins have evolved with very high certainty. Also, DO SOME DAMN RESEARCH. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT CHANCE!
-
In response :)
1. Yes I have some knowledge on the subject
2. I used this clip just to describe the mystery of the flagellum (i dont care if they are creationist or atheist, as long as they give factual description of the observed subject)
3. Explanation of the evolution of the flagellum is based on theory not fact (i.e through the exploration of possabilities and probability of the evolution by the forming of the type 3 secretory, which comes by chance!)
4. Of course evolution deals with origins, hence the title of Charles Darwin's book, which is called "The origin of species" (i just want an explanation of the root of the tree of life using the theory of evolution)
5. fact or theory? its still in dispute, hence its not established fact, and i agree a theory is an explanation of the observed facts.
6. Theory of evolution is based on chance and probabilities
The type 3 secretory apparatus proves that the Bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. Refuting the creationists arguments.
-
this thread is just ridiculous, we have observed the creation of new species, we have complex mathematical,compuer models of complexity theories.
1 more rep, you have no idea about the subject, you have already confused abiogenesis with evolution and asked about a flagellum, a typical, constantly refuted argument.
-
Few Things I would like to share :)
1. Can any1 explain to me how the evolution process started (i.e did it start from nothing or did it start from something that existed) ?
2. Can any1 show me evidence of DNA evolution (i.e by changing or increasing information in the DNA) ?
3. The most likely explanation of the fossils discovered that they are from different species of animals at different development stages (i.e some may be young / older extinct apes , etc)
4. Humans share some of its DNA with other living things such as apes, banana, etc (it doesn't mean humans evolved from apes or bananas, but means all living things share DNA info)
6. many scientists came to understand that not only a single cell, but even a single functional protein, is far too complex to be produced by chance.
5. Darwin Theory of Evolution is not an established fact
;)
There are a few NASA scientist on record saying that ET's really do exist and just about go so far as to say that we were simply made by them...
Bottom line is we are insignificant and are more then likely just worker ants for someone else...
-
There are a few NASA scientist on record saying that ET's really do exist and just about go so far as to say that we were simply made by them...
Bottom line is we are insignificant and are more then likely just worker ants for someone else...
The fact that a few NASA scientists say we were made by ETs proves that there are always a few scientists who believe in stupid shit. Like the 3 biologists left in the world who believe in creationism.
-
Creationism is as mislead as scientific positivism. A futile battle.
-
1. Evolution started with molecular evolution, various molecules binding and combining based on their environments and properties. After a while they became more and more complex, and in the right environment and circumstances, they became organic molecules and later cells. So basically it started with something that already existed (matter).
2. The claims about "increasing information" are very problematic because most people have a false concept of "information". In short, Evolution actually decreases information but increases specificity. As far as more variety and specificity goes:
* increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
* increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
* novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
* novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
Richard Dawkins wrote a long article about the definition of "information" in regard to Evolution here:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
3. The fossils found comprise of THOUSANDS of specimens consisting of all sorts of varieties of certain species at a wide variety of ages. There are so many lineages known, it would be absolutely impossible for it to be incorrect. We have full lineages set out in the fossil record of entire families of species, and countless specimens of each species.
4. Why else would humans share DNA with other species UNLESS we had a common ancestor? THe more we have in common, the more recent the ancestor. Just like with human families. I'm more similar to my brother than my cousin because our most recent ancestors is our mother and father, opposed to grandfather and grandmother.
5. Evolution IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT. Do some research!!!
6. Scientists already know how cells and proteins have evolved with very high certainty. Also, DO SOME DAMN RESEARCH. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT CHANCE!
tanx for the reply.
Note: How he talks about the origins through probability note that he doesnt believe in the Big Bang Theory, which is an established fact ?!
-
no one can prove that everyone sees the same colors.
what i mean =
when i look at a rose, i see the color "red. so does everyone else. but what is "red"? its a word for a color that everyone sees on certains things. roses, red apple, cherries. etc. but, the actual COLOR itself, could be very different for everyhuman.... the red i see might be the orange that another sees. we would have no idea..because everytime ive seen his orange, ive thought of it as red, because thats what ive been told that that particular colors name is.
lots of things arent an established fact.
-
no one can prove that everyone sees the same colors.
what i mean =
when i look at a rose, i see the color "red. so does everyone else. but what is "red"? its a word for a color that everyone sees on certains things. roses, red apple, cherries. etc. but, the actual COLOR itself, could be very different for everyhuman.... the red i see might be the orange that another sees. we would have no idea..because everytime ive seen his orange, ive thought of it as red, because thats what ive been told that that particular colors name is.
lots of things arent an established fact.
Wow! That's like really deep, bruh.
-
Wow! That's like really deep, bruh.
does my argument make sense to you ?
-
no one can prove that everyone sees the same colors.
what i mean =
when i look at a rose, i see the color "red. so does everyone else. but what is "red"? its a word for a color that everyone sees on certains things. roses, red apple, cherries. etc. but, the actual COLOR itself, could be very different for everyhuman.... the red i see might be the orange that another sees. we would have no idea..because everytime ive seen his orange, ive thought of it as red, because thats what ive been told that that particular colors name is.
lots of things arent an established fact.
The problem with this argument is that you assume an objective color which could be compared to the subjective color a certain individual experiences. However, the idea of the objective color must be disregarded completely in the first place, since as soon as you imagine this "objective" color, it becomes subjective again. What there is beyond our methods of perception we cannot say, but it sure has nothing to do with "color".
-
thought this thread was about the member protein farts.
-
The problem with this argument is that you assume an objective color which could be compared to the subjective color a certain individual experiences. However, the idea of the objective color must be disregarded completely in the first place, since as soon as you imagine this "objective" color, it becomes subjective again. What there is beyond our methods of perception we cannot say, but it sure has nothing to do with "color".
well thats the exact point i was trying to make, i think
-
well thats the exact point i was trying to make, i think
That's possible, it's just that the argument you used to make the point is flawed in my opinion. If you say "what I see as red, he may see as orange", you already objectify your perception of "red". Since this imagination of an objective color (beyond the mere scientific aspect of electromagnetic wavelength) is not permissible in the first place, the whole argument must be dismissed. For comparing the perception of color of two individuals (if such comparison is possible at all), other methods must be found. If the point you were trying to make was that what is there in "reality", we cannot say by just naming it "red", I agree, but other philosophical arguments must be found to support that thesis.
-
Few Things I would like to share :)
1. Can any1 explain to me how the evolution process started (i.e did it start from nothing or did it start from something that existed) ?
2. Can any1 show me evidence of DNA evolution (i.e by changing or increasing information in the DNA) ?
3. The most likely explanation of the fossils discovered that they are from different species of animals at different development stages (i.e some may be young / older extinct apes , etc)
4. Humans share some of its DNA with other living things such as apes, banana, etc (it doesn't mean humans evolved from apes or bananas, but means all living things share DNA info)
6. many scientists came to understand that not only a single cell, but even a single functional protein, is far too complex to be produced by chance.
5. Darwin Theory of Evolution is not an established fact
;)
what emanates from the God mind IS A universal language of hyperspace based on tone color and archetype....
archetypes are geometrical shapes
a group of archetypes creates a sentance
archetype sentences are the base for our dna
a grup or sentence form proteins
thought creates matter
-
this thread is just ridiculous, we have observed the creation of new species, we have complex mathematical,compuer models of complexity theories.
1 more rep, you have no idea about the subject, you have already confused abiogenesis with evolution and asked about a flagellum, a typical, constantly refuted argument.
Dealt with by Richard Dawkins also... The eye is another example.
But anyway, I think the creationists should start to explain the complexities behind their "god", before demanding explanations from others.
CD
-
Few Things I would like to share :)
1. Can any1 explain to me how the evolution process started (i.e did it start from nothing or did it start from something that existed) ?
We were genetically ingeneered by several alien groups in order to have them stop bickering over this planet . Each group donated DNA and they also programed their sequences to be dominant thus establishing us in eternal conflict
2. Can any1 show me evidence of DNA evolution (i.e by changing or increasing information in the DNA) ?
show you ?
you need to do some research on your own on how thought ( tone, color, archetype) creates matter
3. The most likely explanation of the fossils discovered that they are from different species of animals at different development stages (i.e some may be young / older extinct apes , etc)
4. Humans share some of its DNA with other living things such as apes, banana, etc (it doesn't mean humans evolved from apes or bananas, but means all living things share DNA info)
Animals were created to be an ecosystem according to HUMAN thought pattern
6. many scientists came to understand that not only a single cell, but even a single functional protein, is far too complex to be produced by chance.
5. Darwin Theory of Evolution is not an established fact
all bs
;)
-
DISCLAIMER: I HAVE NO AFFILIATION WITH THE THREAD STARTER.
THANK YOU
"1"
-
what emanates from the God mind IS A universal language of hyperspace based on tone color and archetype....
archetypes are geometrical shapes
a group of archetypes creates a sentance
archetype sentences are the base for our dna
a grup or sentence form proteins
thought creates matter
I assume you're kidding, as the spelling, retarded concepts and non verifiable arugments, lacking axioms, logic or rational progression completely comprise your argument.
how can there be thought without matter? no brain no thought.
-
I assume you're kidding, as the spelling, retarded concepts and non verifiable arugments, lacking axioms, logic or rational progression completely comprise your argument.
how can there be thought without matter? no brain no thought.
matter is thought....
matter is a hologramic projection of thought pattern
it's a 3d holografic illusion if you will
phisical reality is considered an error in thinking from THE god mind PERSPECTIVE
before you insult me wipe your nose as what I'm telling you is way beyond your comprehension capacity
-
Few Things I would like to share :)
1. Can any1 explain to me how the evolution process started (i.e did it start from nothing or did it start from something that existed) ?
2. Can any1 show me evidence of DNA evolution (i.e by changing or increasing information in the DNA) ?
3. The most likely explanation of the fossils discovered that they are from different species of animals at different development stages (i.e some may be young / older extinct apes , etc)
4. Humans share some of its DNA with other living things such as apes, banana, etc (it doesn't mean humans evolved from apes or bananas, but means all living things share DNA info)
6. many scientists came to understand that not only a single cell, but even a single functional protein, is far too complex to be produced by chance.
5. Darwin Theory of Evolution is not an established fact
;)
Video Showing the bacterial flagellum / irreducible complexity argument totally PWND!
Evolution has NOTHING to do with the very origin of life at all, that instead is called ABIOGENESIS.
Evolution is both FACT and THEORY; we have observed speciation in a laboratory setting and it's no longer up for debate. The theoretical end of it are the processes and mechinisms by which evolution occurs. That's the only thing open for discussion not whether evolution actually happens.
Honestly, I don't see what the point is in bringing up some 1980's creationalist bullshit that was so very vigorously debunked so long ago. ::)
-
If you believe this then I guess you believe that Noah built an ark and had all of the animals in the world loaded on it and then the earth was flooded etc. etc. question is did he load all the insects on the ark too ? mmm because if he forgot the bees and other insects then pollination wouldn't of occurred after the flood and everyone would of starved to death ! animals couldn't eat plants then no meat no vegetables you get the picture.
-
matter is thought....
matter is a hologramic projection of thought pattern
it's a 3d holografic illusion if you will
phisical reality is considered an error in thinking from THE god mind PERSPECTIVE
before you insult me wipe your nose as what I'm telling you is way beyond your comprehension capacity
pure nonsense, any proof of what you are saying beyond the book the holographic universe which is utter shit?
-
matter is thought....
matter is a hologramic projection of thought pattern
it's a 3d holografic illusion if you will
phisical reality is considered an error in thinking from THE god mind PERSPECTIVE
before you insult me wipe your nose as what I'm telling you is way beyond your comprehension capacity
so according to you my thoughts should have weight since they are matter or create matter. I should be able to change matter with thought also, and create it.
however, we can change perception or thought by altering the brain aka matter. so which conclusion is more likely, the one with evidence or your crackpot idea.
-
tanx for the reply.
Note: How he talks about the origins through probability note that he doesnt believe in the Big Bang Theory, which is an established fact ?!
I don't have time to watch videos right now.
You should reply to my full post. YOU, not a video.
BTW, Dawkins DOES believe in the Big bang. Absolutely does. I don't know what the facts where 20 years ago, but right now he does.
-
pure nonsense, any proof of what you are saying beyond the book the holographic universe which is utter shit?
again you insult me while being a dummy
I have no clue about that book you keep yapping about
and stop with the proof stuff
If what I'm saying doesn't resonate with your reality in layman's terms you too stupid
then disregard and move on
-
again you insult me while being a dummy
I have no clue about that book you keep yapping about
and stop with the proof stuff
If what I'm saying doesn't resonate with your reality in layman's terms you too stupid
then disregard and move on
i mentioned the book once, so using keep is a bit of a mosnomer.
Anyway, what you said is childish nonsense, utter shit.
Again is thought creates matter, i assume you are taking the double slit experiment out of context, i should be able to change reality with my mind, and verify it.
-
i mentioned the book once, so using keep is a bit of a mosnomer.
Anyway, what you said is childish nonsense, utter shit.
Again is thought creates matter, i assume you are taking the double slit experiment out of context, i should be able to change reality with my mind, and verify it.
yes you can ...you constantly create reality around you according to your thought pattern
I'm afraid you do notunderstand what I'm saying
-
The single best way to prove that evolution is a fact is to point out that all complex organisms share with simpler ones the same structures, whilst the reverse is not true. That is, all animalia have eyes, because that is conditione sina qua non to survive as a mobile living organism, which is essentially what distinguishes animals from plants, but only animals that posses sophisticated means of absorbing oxygen and eliminating wastes have a vertebra, because the functions of the circulatory, digestive and excretory systems in animals more complex than insects are too intricate to be enveloped in an exoskeleton. Likewise, Humans share with lemurs and the large apes the opposable thumb and a large brain, but only Humans have the prefrontal cortex, which is the seat of logical reasoning and language composition and thus the basis of intelligence. Ultimately, all living creatures share one thing in common, namely, the deoxirribonucleic acid, and that is prima fasce evidence that they all originated from the same locus. So we see here a reverse pyramid, where the lower you go on the scale of complexity of living creatures, the more common structures you find in common between them, ultimately boiling down to the DNA itself. This is because the evolutionary process is additive, where structures are added allowing for greater and greater complexity meaning that between complex living creatures you'll find more and more structures that distinguish them. For instance, a Human Being shares many different structures with a plant, less so with a rabbit and even less so with an ape.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
yes you can ...you constantly create reality around you according to your thought pattern
I'm afraid you do notunderstand what I'm saying
fail... you mean your subjective reality? what you are implying is that one can change objective reality ie thought creates matter, thus i should be able to create things with my mind that others can verify, not the way i see the world, this is call perception, not the same, try again.
-
fail... you mean your subjective reality? what you are implying is that one can change objective reality ie thought creates matter, thus i should be able to create things with my mind that others can verify, not the way i see the world, this is call perception, not the same, try again.
I'm implying that what I typed is beyond your capabiliy to comprehend ...
stick to what you know best and disregard what I say..it's for a diff audience ;)
-
The world is too complex to have been created by chance alone.
-
The world is too complex to have been created by chance alone.
Evolution isn't based on "chance", it is based on selection.
CD
-
Likewise, Humans share with lemurs and the large apes the opposable thumb and a large brain, but only Humans have the prefrontal cortex, which is the seat of logical reasoning and language composition and thus the basis of intelligence.
Great post, but the great apes do have a prefrontal cortex, although not as developed as humans:
http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/11241188/Prefrontal_cortex_in_humans_and_apes_a_comparative_study_of_area_10
CD
-
Evolution isn't based on "chance", it is based on selection.
CD
Natural selection alone couldn't explain things as they are. Germs, viruses, people, animals change over time but it doesn't seem likely that the world is old enough for us to be where we are now.
-
It amuses me that the Bible thumping "1 More Rep" has chosen a name so close to the openly homosexual "One More Rep." Did he know this? Was it motivated by some subconscious desire? Was it just dumb luck or was it the Will of God?
-
Natural selection alone couldn't explain things as they are. Germs, viruses, people, animals change over time but it doesn't seem likely that the world is old enough for us to be where we are now.
so you think that the world is to complex to have just happened yet your explanation for the complexity is a more complex sentient being that creates the universe in his magic factory.
You are explaining complexity with more complexity yet not demanding the same explanation for god. Faulty logic and science has explained much of the world, look at complexity theory,biology,chemistry,physics etc.. if you lack knowledge it is easy to be confused like the cavemen were.
-
so you think that the world is to complex to have just happened yet your explanation for the complexity is a more complex sentient being that creates the universe in his magic factory.
You are explaining complexity with more complexity yet not demanding the same explanation for god. Faulty logic and science has explained much of the world, look at complexity theory,biology,chemistry,physics etc.. if you lack knowledge it is easy to be confused like the cavemen were.
More a prime mover, not something in need of worship.
Religion is a creation of man.
-
More a prime mover and something in need of worship.
Religion is a creation of man.
but that is to complex to happen by chance ::) i mean would the creator be more complex then the creation?
easily refuted argument, god is a failed hypothesis and has no rational arguments at all.
-
hey dumbass:
The different definitions of "theory"
The first one is the scientific definition
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
-
I'm actually surprised how many atheists lurk around here on these boards. Given that a majority of members are american you would expect something else.
-
I'm actually surprised how many atheists lurk around here on these boards. Given that a majority of members are american you would expect something else.
"Well if you wanna be known as "scholar" these days you've gotta mock the existence of God, praise apes, marry the same sex, and kill an unborn child. Ah, enlightenment" ;)
-
Evolution depends on BENEFICIAL mutations that happen by chance.
Where in nature have we seen this happen?
-
Evolution depends on BENEFICIAL mutations that happen by chance.
Where in nature have we seen this happen?
Haven't you seen the movie "UNBREAKABLE" ???
There has to be a mutation that turns people into supermen :D
-
Evolution depends on BENEFICIAL mutations that happen by chance.
Where in nature have we seen this happen?
its relative, many africans have a mutation that maks then immune to malarial replication yet increases the sickling of erythrocytes. So it a relative thing, in america this is not beneficial, but being immune to an epidemic while risking slight anemia is certainly beneficial.
there are many papers on beneficial mutations, look at antibiotic resistant bacteria, they mutate to increase antibiotic resistant pumps all the time, certainly beneficial.
-
its relative, many africans have a mutation that maks then immune to malarial replication yet increases the sickling of erythrocytes. So it a relative thing, in america this is not beneficial, but being immune to an epidemic while risking slight anemia is certainly beneficial.
there are many papers on beneficial mutations, look at antibiotic resistant bacteria, they mutate to increase antibiotic resistant pumps all the time, certainly beneficial.
Are you referign to so called "super bugs"?
* ‘Supergerms’ are actually not ‘super’ at all. They are generally less hardy, and less fit to survive outside of the special conditions in hospitals.
*There are many instances in which germs become resistant by simple selection of resistance which already existed (including that ‘imported’ from other bacteria).
* Where a mutational defect causes resistance, the survival advantage is almost always caused by a loss of information. In no case is there any evidence of an information-adding, ‘uphill’ change.
* ‘Supergerms’ give no evidence to sustain the claim that living things evolved from simple to complex, by adding information progressively over millions of years.
hmmz it appears to be that their mutations are not beneficial :-\
-
anything and everything that we know falls in the categorie of the 5 platonic structures in there design Plato said this back in the day and it holds true to dis day bitches
-
but that is to complex to happen by chance ::) i mean would the creator be more complex then the creation?
easily refuted argument, god is a failed hypothesis and has no rational arguments at all.
Typo, LOL!
I meant and not in need of worship.
At any rate, it's not something that needs explaining/refuting. Doesn't matter anyways but the way simple things we take for granted like the immune system are just too complicated to have happened through natural selection alone. Obviously, proteins and other primitive life forms leave no fossil record so it's entirely possible the earth is far older than our ability to appreciate so who knows.
-
There are tons of examples of beneficial mutations
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q2 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q2)
-
Are you referign to so called "super bugs"?
* ‘Supergerms’ are actually not ‘super’ at all. They are generally less hardy, and less fit to survive outside of the special conditions in hospitals.
*There are many instances in which germs become resistant by simple selection of resistance which already existed (including that ‘imported’ from other bacteria).
* Where a mutational defect causes resistance, the survival advantage is almost always caused by a loss of information. In no case is there any evidence of an information-adding, ‘uphill’ change.
* ‘Supergerms’ give no evidence to sustain the claim that living things evolved from simple to complex, by adding information progressively over millions of years.
hmmz it appears to be that their mutations are not beneficial :-\
Again tons of examples of beneficial mutations, how isnt a bug that is resistant to antibiotics even in a hospital setting beneficial? it increases its fitness within the environmnet. Who said that superbugs were the prime evidence for gradual evolution, they provide some insight into mechanism but much better exampes exist, as well as evidence.
the fact that you are questioning one of the most championed and tested theories in science leads me to beleive you dont know much about it or are religious.
It literally has mountains of studies, and multidisciplinary convergence of evidences from all fields. Nothing has ever falsified it and many things could, the fact that all fields point to evolution should be proof enough.
-
I make protein all the time. It's not by chance.