Thread: London terror attack, yo. :O

Originally Posted by saibot

Originally Posted by Vesh

saibot, they are not killed by their defense against the poison. They survive. Their effective enzyme is useless (actually, it's lethal) in poisonous environment. Their ineffective enzyme nevertheless let them survive and possible develop more effective enzyme resistant to poison.

My point is that in developing a defense against the poison, the essential enzyme became very very useless. This will kill the organism.

Yes, the ineffective enzyme let's them survive the poison, but in the long run they wont survive.

Well, if they won't survive, they'll extinct. It had happened to a lot of species. No surprise here. No contradiction to Darwin's theory.

Originally Posted by saibot

Originally Posted by Vesh

saibot, they are not killed by their defense against the poison. They survive. Their effective enzyme is useless (actually, it's lethal) in poisonous environment. Their ineffective enzyme nevertheless let them survive and possible develop more effective enzyme resistant to poison.

My point is that in developing a defense against the poison, the essential enzyme became very very useless. This will kill the organism.

Yes, the ineffective enzyme let's them survive the poison, but in the long run they wont survive.

well, organism got into problem. If by some luck it gets mutation in gene which protects against poison but not kill itself, we'll see a new form. If not, that species (in this environment) will desappear, like dinosourus.

Originally Posted by Pioner

Originally Posted by saibot

Great example! That is called selection! Natural, but in this case artificial selection. Organisms do not change because of the environment, that theory is wrong and called Lamarkism, not Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism (Darwinism + Genetics) speaks about selection. All of us got different variation of genes, which are quite stable, mutations are quite rare and they often useless or fatal, but some of them usefull. Anyhow, when cadmium did not exist, all worms were OK, but they some of them had genes of cadmium-resistence. Then environment changed and here we go, all useless (from evolution point of view) in current situation organisms died but those who had "right" genes survived. Look at Giraffes. Long ago they had normal necks. Let's say that 1% of them had slightly longer neck, guess what? They manage to get leaves better then other. They had higher chances to survive. So in several generations those with longer necks survived. Then it goes futher, out of them who had even longer necks survived. Etc. Looks simple, but it is complecated at the same time. Because long neck creates other comlecations for the organism. So out of longer neck giraffes survive those organism who had possibility to deal with high blood pressure etc. Evolution selects by many factors. Look at cars. Lets say there is an almost perfect car, powerful engine, great milage, great design, but horrible brakes? Who is going to buy that? Nobody. That car does not survive. People select cars which better value for a buck but with all needed stuff. Manufacturers of wrong cars do not survive, like many eastereropean manufacturers of cars disappeared.

Oh I disagree. Environment has a very big effect on organisms.

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ ... oxins.html

[quote:keru33fb]Evidence that the genes of developing fetuses can be permanently changed by exposure to compounds that act like hormones and that this effect is then passed on to future generations is sending shock waves through the ecotoxicology community. A study reported this week in June at the annual Endocrine Society meeting in San Diego, Calif., found that if pregnant rats were dosed with the fungicide vinclozolin or the pesticide methoxychlor, their young later suffered fertility problems. Further, this defect was passed on to future offspring, evidence that the chemicals had permanently reprogrammed the animals’ genetics.

DNA is a huge but nevertherless regular chemical molecula. And some chemicals effect it, changing it's structure, those chemicals are called mutagens. But, those changes are not directed, spontaneous, and does not develop resistence to that mutagen, unless by some luck there appear a mutation protecting against that. Mutagens increase variations in DNA, mutations, most of them fatal. But, things like, for example cold climate do not change genes that animals start to produce thicker fir. No, it is just so happen that animals with thicker fir have more chances to survive and produce babies with thicker fir. But environment does to change genom of animals directing it going in "right" direction. I hope I am clear here. Quite busy at my work right now.[/quote:keru33fb]

Ok. All the posts on the last 3 pages of this argument are all about nit-picky little details. We could sit here and argue all day about it, and get nowhere. You say something, I counter it, then you counter that. And so on.

So Im gonna make it broad again. In your example above, about developing thicker fur, that is natural selection. I have no problem with natural selection. But when does natural selection CAUSE evolution? Natural selection - change in allele frequencies. Nothing new added to the gene pool. Darwinism is defined as evolution THROUGH natural selection. I may be missing something here, but If nothing is added to the gene pool, when and how does a completely new species arise?

Originally Posted by saibot

Ok. All the posts on the last 3 pages of this argument are all about nit-picky little details. We could sit here and argue all day about it, and get nowhere. You say something, I counter it, then you counter that. And so on.

So Im gonna make it broad again. In your example above, about developing thicker fur, that is natural selection. I have no problem with natural selection. But when does natural selection CAUSE evolution? Natural selection - change in allele frequencies. Nothing new added to the gene pool. Darwinism is defined as evolution THROUGH natural selection. I may be missing something here, but If nothing is added to the gene pool, when and how does a completely new species arise?

keyword=mutation

How? Tell me how a mutation in a banana is going to make a whale?

Take corn. Mutate the hell out of it. What do you get? New corn! Take a banana. Mutate it till your head hurts! What do you get? A new type of banana! Show me, where are the fossils of the transition organisms? ...There are none.

Mutation is shuffling and changing genes that already exist. Not adding more like evolution suggests.

Originally Posted by saibot

How? Tell me how a mutation in a banana is going to make a whale?

That is impossible, but the main idea... a mutation is not enough. There should be many and many of them. And it takes million of years and generations.

In simple case, just an example, totally made up by me, but a demonstration. Originally humans had dark hair. Because they are from Africa, protection agains the sun. They left Africa to Europe, but still had dark hair. Then, there happened a mutation, on female was born with gene which limited amount of melatonin (is that a correct word) in hair. She got "married", whatever cavemen had at that time. She had children, let's say blond as well, and blond girls looked more attractive to men at that time, for whatever reason. So they had more children and gene of blondness start to spread in population, men prefer to take blonds as wifes etc. So blond had more chances to have children.

I personally prefer brunettes, but it is just a made up example. To show the selection after mutation.

Originally Posted by Pioner

Originally Posted by saibot

How? Tell me how a mutation in a banana is going to make a whale?

That is impossible, but the main idea... a mutation is not enough. There should be many and many of them. And it takes million of years and generations.

In simple case, just an example, totally made up by me, but a demonstration. Originally humans had dark hair. Because they are from Africa, protection agains the sun. They left Africa to Europe, but still had dark hair. Then, there happened a mutation, on female was born with gene which limited amount of melatonin (is that a correct word) in hair. She got "married", whatever cavemen had at that time. She had children, let's say blond as well, and blond girls looked more attractive to men at that time, for whatever reason. So they had more children and gene of blondness start to spread in population, men prefer to take blonds as wifes etc. So blond had more chances to have children.

I personally prefer brunettes, but it is just a made up example. To show the selection after mutation.

Mutations that create an entirely new animal has never been observed. When I see it, I'll believe it. The information you gave is no doubt a mutation, but is the girl now a zebra? No she is still the same organism! It was a variation within a current species.

Originally Posted by saibot

How? Tell me how a mutation in a banana is going to make a whale?

Take corn. Mutate the hell out of it. What do you get? New corn! Take a banana. Mutate it till your head hurts! What do you get? A new type of banana! Show me, where are the fossils of the transition organisms? ...There are none.

Mutation is shuffling and changing genes that already exist. Not adding more like evolution suggests.

as I said, it takes million years. And there are fossils of transition organisms, for example:


or more about transition of birds:
http://www.apus.ru/site.xp/049052056055 ... 53124.html

sorry, I have no time for searching in English, but you can have a look on pictures, without reading much Russian.

There is similar fossils for a lot of transition species.

Originally Posted by saibot

Originally Posted by Pioner

Originally Posted by saibot

How? Tell me how a mutation in a banana is going to make a whale?

That is impossible, but the main idea... a mutation is not enough. There should be many and many of them. And it takes million of years and generations.

In simple case, just an example, totally made up by me, but a demonstration. Originally humans had dark hair. Because they are from Africa, protection agains the sun. They left Africa to Europe, but still had dark hair. Then, there happened a mutation, on female was born with gene which limited amount of melatonin (is that a correct word) in hair. She got "married", whatever cavemen had at that time. She had children, let's say blond as well, and blond girls looked more attractive to men at that time, for whatever reason. So they had more children and gene of blondness start to spread in population, men prefer to take blonds as wifes etc. So blond had more chances to have children.

I personally prefer brunettes, but it is just a made up example. To show the selection after mutation.

Mutations that create an entirely new animal has never been observed. When I see it, I'll believe it. The information you gave is no doubt a mutation, but is the girl now a zebra? No she is still the same organism! It was a variation within a current species.

I said, it takes million years. How old are you?

Originally Posted by Pioner

Originally Posted by saibot

How? Tell me how a mutation in a banana is going to make a whale?

Take corn. Mutate the hell out of it. What do you get? New corn! Take a banana. Mutate it till your head hurts! What do you get? A new type of banana! Show me, where are the fossils of the transition organisms? ...There are none.

Mutation is shuffling and changing genes that already exist. Not adding more like evolution suggests.

as I said, it takes million years. And there are fossils of transition organisms, for example:


or more about transition of birds:
http://www.apus.ru/site.xp/049052056055 ... 53124.html

sorry, I have no time for searching in English, but you can have a look on pictures, without reading much Russian.

There is similar fossils for a lot of transition species.

First of all, you can't be sure that mutations cause a change of organism type, since it has never been observed. Have you watched for millions of years while organisms change from one thing to another? Doubtful. Your "factual" information is based on a hypothesis.

And secondly, bring that fossil into a courtroom. Lay it on a table and tell the judge, "This creature is a half-dinosaur, half-bird, and it is the great great great uncle, 4 million times removed, of all the humans on the earth." See how far you get. How do you know that creature had any children? And how do you know it can do something that no living thing can do today, and that is to produce something other than its kind.

saibot, you asked for transition species, I gave you this example. I have no time to discuss it right now, in front of judge, but if 99% of biologists think that Darwinism has a solid ground, may be they are right?

This creature obvously got features of reptile and bird.

I leave for a few hours, only to return and see the "evolution" of the debate!

Originally Posted by Pioner

saibot, you asked for transition species, I gave you this example. I have no time to discuss it right now, in front of judge, but if 99% of biologists think that Darwinism has a solid ground, may be they are right?

This creature obvously got features of reptile and bird.

The only proof for evolution or Darwinism, has been proven false. If you take away all the lies and false information supporting it, you are left with nothing. Evolution is nothing more than a protected government religion, and the hope is if you say it often enough and loud enough, it will just magically become true. Plus, not only is evolution a dumb idea, but it's a dangerous one at that. Hitler wanted to create the perfect race. He was quoted as saying (I will find the quote) that he is speeding up natural selection (not my definition of natural selection, but the one pertaining to Darwinism) by elimintating inferiors. The shooters a Columbine created a video tape, and one of the boys said "He doesnt deserve the jaw that evolution gave him. Look for it. It wont be on his body." And that same boy wore a t shirt that said "Natural Selection" on it.

Case and point: Evolution is a dumb, false idea, with no solid proof, that destroys the moral fabric of the world.

PS. I would like some definitive confirmation that that creature is a transition organism. Please give me some.

Originally Posted by saibot

Mutations that create an entirely new animal has never been observed.

Because they do not exist. It's a statistical process.

Horse does not turn into zebra overnight. In a result of a mutation a gene of white stripe appears in a horses population. And those stripes apparently not that bright, and appear not on the whole body of the horse, just, let’s say, on legs or shoulders. If this horses population happens to live in Africa savannah where stripe give some advantage, those horses who have them, live longer and have more descendants. Those horses, who happen to have genes that facilitate stripes to be brighter (all mammals have genes that modify their skin and fur color), live longer and have more descendants. They basically outbreed horses. At some point of the process stripped horses (zebras) do not mate non-stripped horses any more. This process takes tens of thousands years.

Originally Posted by saibot

Originally Posted by Pioner

saibot, you asked for transition species, I gave you this example. I have no time to discuss it right now, in front of judge, but if 99% of biologists think that Darwinism has a solid ground, may be they are right?

This creature obvously got features of reptile and bird.

The only proof for evolution or Darwinism, has been proven false. If you take away all the lies and false information supporting it, you are left with nothing. Evolution is nothing more than a protected government religion, and the hope is if you say it often enough and loud enough, it will just magically become true. Plus, not only is evolution a dumb idea, but it's a dangerous one at that. Hitler wanted to create the perfect race. He was quoted as saying (I will find the quote) that he is speeding up natural selection (not my definition of natural selection, but the one pertaining to Darwinism) by elimintating inferiors. The shooters a Columbine created a video tape, and one of the boys said "He doesnt deserve the jaw that evolution gave him. Look for it. It wont be on his body." And that same boy wore a t shirt that said "Natural Selection" on it.

Case and point: Evolution is a dumb, false idea, with no solid proof, that destroys the moral fabric of the world.

PS. I would like some definitive confirmation that that creature is a transition organism. Please give me some.

Evolution has been proven false???
Saibot, I've only seen theories, opinions, and conjectures. Not one definitive, or "mathematical" proof. Not one.

You cannot prove "evolution" is "false"...anymore than you can prove that "creationism" is true. Simply not possible. Therefore, the possibility of evolution continues to exist.

You may have a good argument, but that is not a "proof" or the disproving of a proof in scientific or mathematical logic.

Originally Posted by Vesh

Originally Posted by saibot

Mutations that create an entirely new animal has never been observed.

Because they do not exist. It's a statistical process.

Horse does not turn into zebra overnight. In a result of a mutation a gene of white stripe appears in a horses population. And those stripes apparently not that bright, and appear not on the whole body of the horse, just, let’s say, on legs or shoulders. If this horses population happens to live in Africa savannah where stripe give some advantage, those horses who have them, live longer and have more descendants. Those horses, who happen to have genes that facilitate stripes to be brighter (all mammals have genes that modify their skin and fur color), live longer and have more descendants. They basically outbreed horses. At some point of the process stripped horses (zebras) do not mate non-stripped horses any more. This process takes tens of thousands years.

Yes I realize this...but my point is very, very simple. How do you know 100%, that it takes that long? No one has ever been able to live that long to see it!

I'm moving for an end to this discussion. I've said just about all I want to say. This is pointless. It's not like a few people arguing in a forum will solve this mystery. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Nothing you can say will make me change my mind, and I'm sure you feel the same way.

This is my last post in this discussion.

For me, it's over.

EDIT: Dobry, I didn't say evolution was proven false. I said all the "proofs" (aka arguments, that people like to say are proofs) FOR evolution have been proven false.

Everything that supports the theory has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, to be false. Not the entire theory itself. But when you take away all the support for a theory, what do you have left?

You can make the call.

Originally Posted by saibot

Everything that supports the theory has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, to be false. Not the entire theory itself. But when you take away all the support for a theory, what do you have left?

You can make the call.

I don't see "proofs" that "take away all support" for the Theory of Evolution. Sorry, but I have seen no "absolute and irrefutable proofs" against Evolution. Only more theories and opinions.

Reminds me of Galileo's theories...Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion...Theories of a round, and not flat, world.

All were considered absolutely false, and heresy...until our knowledge progressed and caught up with the concepts.

In essence, our knowledge "evolved".

Originally Posted by saibot

Originally Posted by Pioner

saibot, you asked for transition species, I gave you this example. I have no time to discuss it right now, in front of judge, but if 99% of biologists think that Darwinism has a solid ground, may be they are right?

This creature obvously got features of reptile and bird.

The only proof for evolution or Darwinism, has been proven false.

'cuse me, what is "the only proof for evolution"?

Originally Posted by saibot

The only proof for evolution or Darwinism, has been proven false. If you take away all the lies and false information supporting it, you are left with nothing. Evolution is nothing more than a protected government religion, and the hope is if you say it often enough and loud enough, it will just magically become true. Plus, not only is evolution a dumb idea, but it's a dangerous one at that. Hitler wanted to create the perfect race. He was quoted as saying (I will find the quote) that he is speeding up natural selection (not my definition of natural selection, but the one pertaining to Darwinism) by elimintating inferiors. The shooters a Columbine created a video tape, and one of the boys said "He doesnt deserve the jaw that evolution gave him. Look for it. It wont be on his body." And that same boy wore a t shirt that said "Natural Selection" on it.

Case and point: Evolution is a dumb, false idea, with no solid proof, that destroys the moral fabric of the world.

PS. I would like some definitive confirmation that that creature is a transition organism. Please give me some.

Well, on the basis of this post, I can see there's no point trying to convince saibot of the merits of evolution theory. He clearly feels a deep hostility to it and not only considers it to be incorrect but also views it as somehow morally corrupting. I guess in saibot's view people who have been taken in by this false 'protected government religion' are not only dumb and misguided but also less moral than those like him who reject it.

Originally Posted by saibot

EDIT: Dobry, I didn't say evolution was proven false. I said all the "proofs" (aka arguments, that people like to say are proofs) FOR evolution have been proven false.

Everything that supports the theory has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, to be false. Not the entire theory itself. But when you take away all the support for a theory, what do you have left?

You can make the call.

saibot,

I understand what you are saying...but logically, you cannot prove a negative, or positive, by the mere absence of something. "Proof" doesn't work that way. Just because a "missing link" has not appeared, does not prove that a "missing link" doesn't exist. I think DDT must agree with me on this.

And...not putting too fine a point on this, butttttt...a standard of "reasonable doubt" has only one, very narrow application...in American criminal trials.

"Reasonable doubt" has no application, no relevance or meaning, in proving or disproving a scientific theory.