• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution My ToE

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
He is only here to say evolution is a scientific fact, so if you don't have anything in science, to say otherwise, just shut up.
That is like a scientist walking around the community of scientist, as though he is wearing a badge, and saying, "Big Bang theory is the accepted theory, so since your theories don't hold up, and are not replacing it, you might as well just go sit in a corner, and keep quiet."
All the while refusing to discuss the problems, contradictions, and gaping holes in the theory.
That kind of attitude, imo, does not make for any kind of debate.
What is one to say? The only thing to say is - Well, accept and keep your holey theory. Bye bye.

If @shunyadragon wants to debate, then he must be willing to consider the problems that people raise. Otherwise, there is no debate... just someone hopping on the forum and saying, "What other scientific theory is there?"

So far you have not brought up any problems worthy of debate. Accusing the science of evolution is from Satan sets your stage that you do not want to discuss science.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I was asked a specific question regarding Satan fyi. Otherwise I would not have mentioned him. My entire thread has been on information related to the title.
Perhaps you don't see those because you can't deal with them. Seems you can only see the post that are easy to ramble about.

I do not believe that anyone brought up but you accusing the science of evolution is a product of "Satan." Take responsibility for your own beliefs that are not science.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Okay. We can discuss the phylogenetic tree, and tiktaalik.
What would you like to discuss about them?

Reference in a peer reviewed scientific journal halps to begin the discussion.

From: sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140113154211.htm

Discovery of new Tiktaalik roseae fossils reveals key link in evolution of hind limbs

The discovery of well-preserved pelves and a partial pelvic fin from Tiktaalik roseae, a 375 million-year-old transitional species between fish and the first legged animals, reveals that the evolution of hind legs actually began as enhanced hind fins. This challenges existing theory that large, mobile hind appendages were developed only after vertebrates transitioned to land. The fossils are described by scientists in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, online on Jan. 13.

"Previous theories, based on the best available data, propose that a shift occurred from 'front-wheel drive' locomotion in fish to more of a 'four-wheel drive' in tetrapods," said Neil Shubin, PhD, Robert R. Bensley Distinguished Service Professor of Anatomy at the University of Chicago and corresponding author of the study, which marks his inaugural article as a member of the National Academy of Sciences. "But it looks like this shift actually began to happen in fish, not in limbed animals."

Discovered in 2004 by Shubin and co-authors Edward Daeschler, PhD, Associate Curator of Vertebrate Zoology at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, and the late Farish A. Jenkins, Jr., PhD, of Harvard University, Tiktaalik roseae represents the best-known transitional species between fish and land-dwelling tetrapods.

A lobe-finned fish with a broad flat head and sharp teeth, Tiktaalik looked like a cross between a fish and a crocodile, growing up to a length of 9 feet as it hunted in shallow freshwater environments. It had gills, scales and fins, but also had tetrapod-like features such as a mobile neck, robust ribcage and primitive lungs. In particular, its large forefins had shoulders, elbows and partial wrists, which allowed it to support itself on ground.

However, only specimen blocks containing the front portion of Tiktaalik have been described thus far. As the researchers investigated additional blocks recovered from their original and subsequent expeditions to the dig site in northern Canada, they discovered the rear portion of Tiktaalik, which contained the pelves as well as partial pelvic fin material. The fossils included the complete pelvis of the original 'type' specimen, making a direct comparison of the front and rear appendages of a single animal possible.

The scientists were immediately struck by the pelvis, which was comparable to those of some early tetrapods. The Tiktaalik pelvic girdle was nearly identical in size to its shoulder girdle, a tetrapod-like characteristic. It possessed a prominent ball and socket hip joint, which connected to a highly mobile femur that could extend beneath the body. Crests on the hip for muscle attachment indicated strength and advanced fin function. And although no femur bone was found, pelvic fin material, including long fin rays, indicated the hind fin was at least as long and as complex as its forefin.

"This is an amazing pelvis, particularly the hip socket, which is very different from anything that we knew of in the lineage leading up to limbed vertebrates," Daeschler said. "Tiktaalik was a combination of primitive and advanced features. Here, not only were the features distinct, but they suggest an advanced function. They appear to have used the fin in a way that's more suggestive of the way a limb gets used."

Tiktaalik pelves were still clearly fish-like, with primitive features such as an undivided skeletal configuration, as opposed to the three-part pelvic girdle of early tetrapods. However, the expanded size, mobility and robusticity of the pelvic girdle, hip joint and fin of Tiktaalik made a wide range of motor behaviors possible.

"It's reasonable to suppose with those big fin rays that Tiktaalik used its hind fins to swim like a paddle," Shubin said. "But it's possible it could walk with them as well. African lungfish living today have similarly large pelves, and we showed in 2011 that they walk underwater on the bottom."

"Regardless of the gait Tiktaalik used, it's clear that the emphasis on hind appendages and pelvic-propelled locomotion is a trend that began in fish, and was later exaggerated during the origin of tetrapods," Shubin said.

Shubin will be hosting a three-part TV series based on his book "Your Inner Fish," on PBS in April 2014, tracing the origins of the human body through the DNA of living animals and the legacies of now-extinct, but biologically important species such as Tiktaalik roseae.


Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Chicago Medical Center. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference:

  1. Neil H. Shubin, Edward B. Daeschler, and Farish A. Jenkins, Jr. Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae. PNAS, January 13, 2014 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1322559111
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Sorry you were unfamiliar with king lists. That is one of many documents referencing spirits.

If there are so many, why did you foolishly pick one of dubious authorship? Didn't you bother to read the article you linked? We all know the answer to that.

In case you are also unfamiliar with the concept that gods are spirits, whenever you see gods mentioned in ancient history that is talking about spirits.

You have yet to show anything that indicates that gods/spirits ruled nations. That was your original comment.

In case you don't know, myths do not count as evidence. If you want myths to count as believable evidence then you must explain why you reject the truth of the following.

Sedna is a giant, the daughter of the creator-god Anguta, with a great hunger that causes her to attack her parents. Angered, Anguta takes her out to sea and throws her over the side of his kayak. As she clings to the sides, he chops off her fingers and she sinks to the underworld, becoming the ruler of the monsters of the deep. Her huge fingers become the seals, walruses, and whales hunted by the Inuit.​


Word of advice: don't try to make others look foolish for your own foolishness.

There is no need for me to make you look foolish. That is one task you are very good at.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Would Jesus be proud of you for elevating Athena and Vesta and Agwe and Ataentsic to His level?
Jesus taught us that spirits exist, and not only good ones. Try to get somewhat up to speed before posting.

You want us to believe that Jesus thought that Athena and Vesta and Agwe and Ataentsic were actual Goddesses and that Atlas and Thor were actual Gods. I thought you believed that Jesus was God's only begotten son.

Oh wait, I see the source of your confusion:

Genesis 6...1Now when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born to them, 2the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took as wives whomever they chose.​

So, Jesus was not God's only begotten son! And His other sons and His daughters actually ruled some Nations. Is that your argument?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Again, totally off base and topic.The going up thing was in reference to a known impact site.


It doesn't matter. There were thousands.

11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.​

This process adds to the vast amount of turbulence on the world's oceans. Also adding to the turbulence is the effect of the constant cloud cover over the entire earth. This would result in tremendous winds and hence immense waves.

Poor little ark would not have lasted five minutes.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I'll answer one of your objections here now.
There are words (which even scientists acknowledge) that are expressed and the exact understanding is not really being able to be expressed. For instance, many realize 'natural selection' is not really accurate to describe the process of evolution. And many describe an automobile in the feminine sense, other languages do the same with various nouns that really have no gender. The Bible was written in a way for men (people) to understand.
The word in the masculine sense is used for God in the Bible. But it is clear to many, including myself, that God has no physical gender as we understand male or female. But the pronoun for God is related as masculine.

OK. But I didn't ask you what God's gender is/was. The Bible states: "2the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took as wives whomever they chose."

If God had sons, how did they come into being? Did God just poof them into existence or did He use a process similar to the Holy Ghost impregnating Mary? If neither, then how? Why did God produce so many Male offspring that all turned into rapists resulting in the Nephilim and the eventual need for the Flood?


I'll answer one of your objections here now.

Well, you didn't and there were a couple more too. I'll try to limit my questions to you to one at a time.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
The appearance of men stronger than others, inciting violence by taking women “all whom they chose”....you don’t think that would be noticeable?

These "stronger men" you reference are written about in Genesis. They are referred to as the sons of God. That would mean that Jesus was not "God's only begotten son".


These other questions, about ‘God having sex’, I’m not even going to dignify with a response.

What you mean is that you cannot explain it and don't want to think about it. God had sons! Who were their mothers? Where did they come from? Did God create women to impregnate or did He just poof a bunch of future rapists into existence intentionally? Yeah. It reeks of selfish incompetence.



You are a fine example of a person displaying Free Will, by expressing your anti-God sentiments.

Yes, I am. Yes, I do have free will. However, I also understand the meaning of the word "omniscience". If your God was omniscient, He knew Adam & Eve would disobey Him and He knew His other sons would come to the earth and have relations with human women resulting in the eventual need for the Great Cleansing Flood. All for what purpose? So that Noah could tell his descendants to tell their descendants about what God does when His own creations do bad things?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Is it one of Satan's designs?
What is a design of Satan?
It is designed to confuse, and lead people away from their creator, and his right standards. It promotes an independent way of thinking, and lifestyle... and materialism.

The idea of UCA and Darwin's idea of evolution is both a doctrine of men, and a design of Satan... in my view.

Your view is potentially correct. Just think about this for a moment. You are possibly engaging Satan's minions when you converse on this forum. More important, Satan's minions are actively engaging with you. Perhaps they are learning about you. They are far more powerful than you and can potentially get into your head, a little at a time.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Evolution as a philosophy

Philosophy - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Philosophy is a way of thinking about the world the universe, and society.
It works by asking very basic questions about the nature of human thought, the nature of the universe, and the connections between them. The ideas in philosophy are often general and abstract.
Let's be clear about what "evolution" is. In the context we've been using it (biology), according to the primary source we've been using evolution is "descent with modification", and "encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene — or more precisely and technically, allele — frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations".

Relative to what you just said, evolution is not "a way of thinking about the world" or "a way of thinking about the universe or society".

So the only way I can see that you can make this argument is by changing the definitions of words to suit your needs.

Philosophy is the study of humans and the world by thinking and asking questions. It is a science and an art. Philosophy tries to answer important questions by coming up with answers about real things and asking "why?"
Sometimes, philosophy tries to answer the same questions as religion and science.
By that definition medicine is a philosophy. Are you of the opinion that medical science is a philosophy as well?

The theory of evolution tries to answer questions creating an "evolutionary history" of living things.
Yes, all fields of science "try to answer questions". That's pretty much what science is all about.

The theory of evolution starts with a preconceived idea, or presumption, regarding the diversity of life on earth.
That's simply false. If you believe it to be true, then I think you should demonstrate your claim to be true.

The dogma - the idea of universal common ancestry - is considered a fact despite any verifiable evidence to support it. All the circumstantial evidence gathered is claimed as evidence in support of the theory.
So you believe there isn't one single piece of evidence in support of UCA? Not even one bit of evidence?

There are numerous examples, but I will just use one...
"UCA is a fact, therefore we should find transitional fossils to "connect the dots" - one or more organism connected to another... all the way back to one. We won't find all, of course but plenty." After more than a century of unsuccessful searching... suddenly. "Ah! There's one. Oh. Some more. Oh. They are coming plentiful now."
Let's look.
Can you please clarify what you think a "transitional fossil" is? If we find a fossil, what sort of characteristics would indicate to you that it might be a "transitional"?

Do you dispute that A. anamensis has shared traits with humans and other apes?

Looks like it. No. This is a belief, or set of beliefs held by and taught as truth.
I don't understand how you came to that conclusion based solely on what you've posted. Is there more to your position, or is it "Here are some pics, that's all they have, so it's a belief"?

Is it one of Satan's designs?
What is a design of Satan?
It is designed to confuse, and lead people away from their creator, and his right standards. It promotes an independent way of thinking, and lifestyle... and materialism.

The idea of UCA and Darwin's idea of evolution is both a doctrine of men, and a design of Satan... in my view.
It is not the case that people necessarily set out to do Satan's will. It is simply a case of being misled because of their own desires. They choose to believe.
So hypothetically, if you were to be presented with evidence of UCA would your first reaction be something like "this is of Satan"?
 

dad

Undefeated
.
dad, you are confused again. Those are your posts. I have offered to help you to learn what is and what is not evidence, a very basic idea. You have demonstrated fear by running away and spamming. If I was spamming I would not make an offer where it would be so easy to catch me. You on the other hand are caught regularly.
Get back to us when you can support your claimed nature in the past.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Sorry tomorrow took so long. :)
No worries.

So basically genes perform special functions.
The design of the cell is such that there are mechanisms in place to protect against cell death, or death to the organism. So replication is fairly accurate, with some errors resulting in mutations, but many of these make no changes.
Some mutations are repaired, though not perfectly.

You were asking about mutation rates.
Article - under Sub-heading : Errors in replication are a source of point mutations
As stated above, the error rate for DNA synthesis in E. coli is 1 in 107. The overall error rate for replication of the E. coli genome is only 1 in 1010 to 1 in 1011, the improvement compared with the polymerase error rate being the result of the mismatch repair system (Section 14.2.3) that scans newly replicated DNA for positions where the bases are unpaired and hence corrects the few mistakes that the replication enzymes make. The implication is that only one uncorrected replication error occurs every 1000 times that the E. coli genome is copied.
All good.

1. How are mutations identified?
I understand that It is often impossible to tell exactly when a de novo mutation happened.
By comparing genetic sequences. The differences between them are due to mutations. Remember the experiment I did, where we compared the sequences of the parents with those of the offspring in order to identify the mutations that led to antibiotic resistance.

I also understand that the same mutation can act differently in different organisms.
An Overview of Mutation Detection Methods in Genetic Disorders
The range of signs and symptoms of some diseases in different people vary widely (variable expressivity), e.g. some people with Marfan syndrome (due to mutation in FBN1) have only mild symptoms (such as being tall and thin with long, slender fingers), while others have life-threatening complications involving the heart and blood vessels as well. Furthermore, some individuals exhibit signs and symptoms of a given disorder while others do not, even though they have the disease-causing mutation (i.e. a proportion of people with a particular mutation show the condition in this type of disorders)
Yep.

Also, 2. can a mutation that is neutral be mistakenly identified as a beneficial mutation, due to the fact that the gene is performing a beneficial action, like antibiotic resistance?
I suppose it's possible, but I'm not aware of any actual examples of that.

I understand also that a mutation, it is suggested, may be directed to particular genes.
Article - Sub-heading : Hypermutation and the possibility of programmed mutations
Is it possible for cells to utilize mutations in a positive fashion, either by increasing the rate at which mutations appear in their genomes, or by directing mutations towards specific genes? Both types of event might appear, at first glance, to go against the accepted wisdom that mutations occur randomly but, as we shall see, hypermutation and programmed mutations are possible without contravening this dogma.....

However, problems have arisen with reports, dating back to 1988 (Cairns et al., 1988), which suggested that E. coli is able to direct mutations towards genes whose mutation would be advantageous under the environmental conditions that the bacterium is encountering.....

Programmed mutations? In 1988 startling results were published suggesting that under some circumstances Escherichia coli bacteria are able to mutate in a directed way that enables cells to adapt to an environmental stress. The randomness of mutations (more...)

These experiments suggested that bacteria can program mutations according to the selective pressures that they are placed under. In other words, the environment can directly affect the phenotype of the organism, as suggested by Lamarck, rather than operating through the random processes postulated by Darwin. With such radical implications, it is not surprising that the experiments have been debated at length, with numerous attempts to discover flaws in their design or alternative explanations for the results. Variations of the original experimental system have suggested that the results are authentic, and similar events in other bacteria have been described. Models based on gene amplification rather than selective mutation are being tested (Andersson et al., 1998), and attention has also been directed at the possible roles of recombination events such as transposition of insertion elements in the generation of programmed mutations (Foster, 1999).
This is subject to debate, but if it is possible...
My understanding is that this possibility didn't pan out (notice how the citations are all 20+ years old).

So to be clear, you believe that a pathogen's ability to resist an antibiotic, or an insect's ability to resist an insecticide was intentionally designed into their genomes?
I believe the cell was purposefully designed with the mechanisms for repairing, resisting, and removing or eliminating foreign invaders or problems to the genome. If that's what you are asking, it's a yes.

Do you believe there is a "who" behind all mutations?
There is no who, behind any mutation. They occur randomly, even if the process was started in the past, by a who. In other words, if the designer tweaked the genome to include mutations, then it was a one time occurrence.
That's very helpful, so thanks.

What exactly is your understanding of mutation rates? How often do you think they occur?
I don't think about it. It is not important to me. However, see above.
Why is that important in this discussion?

I'm not sure what the issue here is. Do you disagree with the estimates of mutation rates that geneticists have generated? If so, on what basis?
I don't understand what prompted the question. Can you please explain.
Earlier it seemed you were putting a lot of effort into disputing the notion that antibiotic resistance in bacteria is the result of mutations and natural selection. So I was trying to figure out what the basis for that was (e.g., was it because you didn't think mutations were common enough). But above you seem to agree that mutations happen, they are random, and they produce changes in organisms. If we're in agreement on all that, can we also agree that antibiotic resistance in bacteria is the result of mutations and natural selection?

I think I had other things to say, but it's been a while. They may come to mind as we go forward.
Okay. I think the main thing I'm still wondering is exactly what you mean by "design", relative to biology. Can you explain?
 

dad

Undefeated
"Multiple indendent lines of evidence" is the exact opposite of circular reasoning. learn your fallacies.
Not when each and every line is based on the very same belief. Focus.

That's a straight up lie.
Multiple independent lines of evidence of objective measurements do converge on the same dates. This is objective data - by definition not just "inside our minds".
False. The imaginary dates that are based on the assumption that laws (nature) was the same. Here is an example..

"Today's knowledge of fossil ages comes primarily from radiometric dating, also known as radioactive dating. Radiometric dating relies on the properties of isotopes. These are chemical elements, like carbon or uranium, that are identical except for one key feature -- the number of neutrons in their nucleus.


Atoms may have an equal number of protons and neutrons. If, however, there are too many or too few neutrons, the atom is unstable, and it sheds particles until its nucleus reaches a stable state. Think of the nucleus as a pyramid of building blocks. If you try to add extra blocks to the sides pyramid, they may stay put for a while, but they'll eventually fall away. The same is true if you take a block away from one of the pyramid's sides, making the rest unstable. Eventually, some of the blocks can fall away, leaving a smaller, more stable structure.

The result is like a radioactive clock that ticks away as unstable isotopes decay into stable ones. You can't predict when a specific unstable atom, or parent, will decay into a stable atom, or daughter. But you can predict how long it will take a large group of atoms to decay. The element's half-life is the amount of time it takes for half the parent atoms in a sample to become daughters."

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

You assume that how particles in this nature and under our present forces and laws are shed is how things always worked.


Plenty of examples of such data in these threads, where you respond with nothing but denial and a priori beliefs that you feel contradict the objective data.
The example ARE beliefs!
 

dad

Undefeated
Clearly you have no idea what a null hypothesis is.



Thank you for being so kind to demonstrate that you indeed have no idea what a null hypothesis is.
Your religion does not get to determine what is the big belief that has to be accepted till proven wrong, sorry!
 

dad

Undefeated
If there are so many, why did you foolishly pick one of dubious authorship? Didn't you bother to read the article you linked? We all know the answer to that.
Because that is a famous one and brings out the fact that spirits were a part of their record.


You have yet to show anything that indicates that gods/spirits ruled nations. That was your original comment.
No. I said they were recorded as being the first rulers, as in Egypt. But since you deny spirit wholesale, all you need to do is look for any god or spirit in ancient history. Then you can deny they existed or accept that maybe some did. You seem to be in total denial, which is the point here.
In case you don't know, myths do not count as evidence. If you want myths to count as believable evidence then you must explain why you reject the truth of the following.
In case you are not aware, you do not get to say what is evidence or not. Really. You can state the restrictions that science imposes on itself as to what evidence may be. But the world is not just the little box of so called science.
 

dad

Undefeated
You want us to believe that Jesus thought that Athena and Vesta and Agwe and Ataentsic were actual Goddesses and that Atlas and Thor were actual Gods. I thought you believed that Jesus was God's only begotten son.

Oh wait, I see the source of your confusion:

Genesis 6...1Now when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born to them, 2the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took as wives whomever they chose.​

So, Jesus was not God's only begotten son! And His other sons and His daughters actually ruled some Nations. Is that your argument?
Not sure how you seem to equate demons with God. Work that out, and get back to us with some rational position.
 

dad

Undefeated
It doesn't matter. There were thousands.

11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.​

This process adds to the vast amount of turbulence on the world's oceans. Also adding to the turbulence is the effect of the constant cloud cover over the entire earth. This would result in tremendous winds and hence immense waves.

Poor little ark would not have lasted five minutes.
?? Thousands?? Proof? As for your fears that God was not able to conduct an operation, sorry, they have no basis in fact.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Random mutations leading to natural selection has a conceptual problem.The reason is a random mechanism for change, will do more harm than good, even if good happens periodically.

As an analogous exercise, close your eyes randomly change a letter or word in my opening paragraph, to see if you will improve or worsen the meaning. With a random approach, more things that can go wrong than right. If you plan the word placement, before you insert, than more good can happen than bad.

In terms of random mutations and natural selection for bacteria, we would not only see some bacteria adapting, but most of the bacteria would be self destructing due to bottlenecks that random genetic changes would create. What we see in reality, is most bacteria will maintain a status quo as though the impact of the bad change is being moderated.

There needs to be a mechanism that can censor random changes, so more good happens than bad, even though bad is more likely with a purely random mechanism.
 
Top