• 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!

Question for people that believe in evolution

Luminous

non-existential luminary
do viruses then develop tolerances or does it mutate?

well you could probably give me a good answer which would be helpful, but i should read the material that has been given to me first before asking any more questions.
well, as far as i understand, mutation in virusus is actuactually just evolution, but because they need hosts to replicate and are soooo simple they are not considered alive. a virus does not really develop a tolerance it just dies and those with mutations that made them tolerant survive. but even being simple, i dont see why a virus could not possible develop a tolerance in itself without dna mutation before replicating. it would have to be a very amazing virus though.
 

Luminous

non-existential luminary
mutations are caused by various factors. it mostly has to do with dna which creates proteins. im sure you've heard about DNA as the "blue-prints" for the whole of an organism. these 'blue-prints' must be copied everytime a cell divides. so as in sexual reproduction the process of Meosis "division of stem cell in order to create germ cells like sperm and ovum,(i belive)" can cause 'mutations' or messed up copies in these germcells that then go one to bind with their respective germcell partner to create another organism, but because of a mutation in one or both, the organism becomes a bit different from what either parents genetic material might have offered. and its dna has thus been mutated. as mentioned before, most of these mutations are small in the DNA and are practically meaningless to the organsim species to cause a verifiable change in its reproductive rate/success. genetic dna for the germ cells can be messed up and mutated by some viruses, some chemicals, forms of energy (UV), or just some unseen mess up in the copying process, etc. now asexual reproduction (as in bacteria) is probably simpler. as the bacteria's dna gets messup by a certain factor, it divides into two bacteria wich are genetically different from the more original form. so lets say there's bacteria that might die with a certain chemical. but before being exposed to the chemical it might grow in numbers and some of those bacteria might get dna changes that cause the bacteria to somehow make more, if not new, proteins/enzymes that help and heal it from the chemical. so when you use the chemical on this colony of bacteria, a few survive and go on to reproduce(divide and grow and divide again) and can make another colony of a large size. but when you use the chemical on these most, if not all, are able to survive. you can see that if the chemical had not been used, the resistant colony would like not have developed because the other bacteria in the colony were competeting for space. this is all in one species of bacteria(im not sure how scientists classify/separate these species as all they do is divide and mutate, so species differentiation must be measured by some basis other than reproduction, such as characteristics). it is also important to mention that many bacteria now have the ability to share dna with eachother, thus increasing their mutation rate/scope.

---not sure if any of that helped ur understanding of the concept of mutation.
 
Last edited:

ThereIsNoSpoon

Active Member
Don't assume that ftv has an agenda. He has said that he want to learn about evolution, that's all. Let's give him a chance to do that before leaping to conclusions.

My experience has been that people who understand ToE often accept it, because it makes sense.
hoho ... slowly my friend ;)
I did not assume that he has an agenda.
It was an honest question with no second thoughts.
 

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
now i am not realy sure. i think mutations are true. what causes the mutations or why they occur i want to find out. this thread has brought up a lot more questions.

Mutations occur because of environmental damage/miscopying of DNA. Sometimes information is added, sometimes deleted, sometimes replaced with other information. The body naturally tries to repair these mistakes, but at times it cannot. Hopefully that explanation wasn't too simplistic so as to be inaccurate.

I'm tempted to launch from here into natural selection, but since the question was only about mutations, I'll leave it at that.
 

footprints

Well-Known Member
this tread is simply to learn and understand.

What evidence of evolution has persuaded you to the believe that evolution occurs?

if you have articles or anything that supports your statement i would be interested in reading them.

Hi ftv, if you are looking for absolute proof for evolution you will not find any. At this present time absolute evidence just doesn't exist. From observed facts, we create circumstantial evidence to prove the theory via the power of suggestion. When the power of suggestion is removed, all that is left is the facts.

As in the data offered by Jose in post number 19, if we manipulate DNA in such a way, this is what happens. Of course as many people have told you, one belief in evolution is the genetic changes which happen naturally over a period of time, over a great period of time a significant change is noted. What the implied power of suggestion is to the data offered by Jose, is that the manipulation by human intervention is supposed to mimick nature, and therefore show evolution. Of course the down side to this, is that man has intervened and it was not a natural process, albeit one which has probability of happening naturally in nature. As this change wouldn't have happened without the intervention of a scientist, the opposite view in the God debate is that due to the manipulation of the gene cell and the noted and observable change, the scientific method behind ID is also observed. Albeit in ID, a deity does the manipulation of gene codes and not a scientist.

Another line in evolution is offered by paleontology, it is still a contentious point, but as time goes on it gathers more supporting evidence, many paleontologist definitely support it. Paleontology have shown a direct link between birds and dinosaurs, and they will even tell you birds are dinosaurs, birds being avian dinosaurs and dinosaurs being non-avian dinosaurs. This sort of blows a big hole down some biological points and as some have even stated here, that only an ape can produce an ape like offspring. It also gives rise to the possibility, that evolution may not be such a slow process after all, the dinosaur extinction is alleged to have happened very quickly, especially in the Mexican Gulf Asteroid/Meteorite theory. Evolution therefore could be just as quick.

The reason I lean toward evolution, is simply due to probability, albeit for the same reasons I lean toward the probability of Creationism and ID as well. Evolution doesn't cancel Creationism out, Creationism and Evolution can happily coexist.
 
Last edited:

Kerr

Well-Known Member
Hi ftv, if you are looking for absolute proof for evolution you will not find any. At this present time absolute evidence just doesn't exist. From observed facts, we create circumstantial evidence to prove the theory via the power of suggestion. When the power of suggestion is removed, all that is left is the facts.
No scientific theory should ever be adopted as a fact.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
ftv, you seem to have left the thread. Should you wander back, I should warn you that footprints has admitted that he believes opposite things can both be true, that he adamantaly refuses to define his terms, then insists that he has done so, that he sows confusion and befuddlement in his wake and that in general, his posts will not add to your comprehension of science.
 

MSizer

MSizer
Hi ftv, if you are looking for absolute proof for evolution you will not find any.

Hi FTV, I highly urge you to keep handy the sceptic society's "baloney detection toolkit" rule number 1, which is to ask yourself "how credible is the source of this information?" (the baloney detection kit was inspired by Carl Sagan so it can't be wrong! ;^).

Some contributers here on RF simply have a history of proving that they don't understand the theory, yet think they do, and post false information. There are a number of posters on RF such as Autodidact, Nepenthe, Alceste, Tumbleweed (I know there are others, but these few happen to come to mind - sorry to the others who deserve mention here but aren't getting it) who have a history of supplying good information and explanation for the ToE. I highly recommend you keep this in mind as you sift through the posts.
 
Last edited:

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Hi ftv, if you are looking for absolute proof for evolution you will not find any. At this present time absolute evidence just doesn't exist. From observed facts, we create circumstantial evidence to prove the theory via the power of suggestion. When the power of suggestion is removed, all that is left is the facts.

Incorrect. The proof of evolution is that we see it take place, all the time, right before our eyes.

As in the data offered by Jose in post number 19, if we manipulate DNA in such a way, this is what happens.
Incorrect. There was no manipulation of the DNA in the experiments we conducted. We simply introduced a population into a new environment and observed and documented their evolution.
 

Kerr

Well-Known Member
Incorrect. The proof of evolution is that we see it take place, all the time, right before our eyes.
Yeah, but o be picky there is a difference between the fact of evolution (that species evolve) and the theory of evolution (why they evolve).
 

MSizer

MSizer
Yeah, but o be picky there is a difference between the fact of evolution (that species evolve) and the theory of evolution (why they evolve).

Yes, evolution is a fact, but I don't think the ToE address "why" species evolve. The theory of natural selection (Darwin's contribution - that's a nagging thing for me, as darwin did not come up with the theory of evolution, he came up with the theory of natural selection) addresses how they evolve. There are some alternative theories to natural selection, but none of them nearly so compelling. Some credible scientists admit that we may find eventually that natural selection is not the only means behind evolution, and that some of the other theories may play a role in the possible combination of means of evolution.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Yeah, but o be picky there is a difference between the fact of evolution (that species evolve) and the theory of evolution (why they evolve).

Sure. Footprints specifically referred to evolution, not evolutionary theory.
 

Kerr

Well-Known Member
Yes, evolution is a fact, but I don't think the ToE address "why" species evolve. The theory of natural selection (Darwin's contribution - that's a nagging thing for me, as darwin did not come up with the theory of evolution, he came up with the theory of natural selection) addresses how they evolve. There are some alternative theories to natural selection, but none of them nearly so compelling. Some credible scientists admit that we may find eventually that natural selection is not the only means behind evolution, and that some of the other theories may play a role in the possible combination of means of evolution.
I could maybe have formulated myself better. How is of course also a part of it.
 

footprints

Well-Known Member
ftv, you seem to have left the thread. Should you wander back, I should warn you that footprints has admitted that he believes opposite things can both be true, that he adamantaly refuses to define his terms, then insists that he has done so, that he sows confusion and befuddlement in his wake and that in general, his posts will not add to your comprehension of science.

Thank you for your atheists input.
 

footprints

Well-Known Member
Hi FTV, I highly urge you to keep handy the sceptic society's "baloney detection toolkit" rule number 1, which is to ask yourself "how credible is the source of this information?" (the baloney detection kit was inspired by Carl Sagan so it can't be wrong! ;^).

Some contributers here on RF simply have a history of proving that they don't understand the theory, yet think they do, and post false information. There are a number of posters on RF such as Autodidact, Nepenthe, Alceste, Tumbleweed (I know there are others, but these few happen to come to mind - sorry to the others who deserve mention here but aren't getting it) who have a history of supplying good information and explanation for the ToE. I highly recommend you keep this in mind as you sift through the posts.

Now MSizer, I do not feel you should treat FTV as a complete moron and idiot, I am sure they are capable of googling information for themselves or seeking credible information from more credible sources. I feel even more confident in saying considering the intelligent input of the first post, that FTV realises that an atheist and their supporters sees things from a different perspective than other people in society and have their own agenda to push.
 

MSizer

MSizer
Now MSizer, I do not feel you should treat FTV as a complete moron and idiot, I am sure they are capable of googling information for themselves or seeking credible information from more credible sources....

Yeah, I suppose you're right, I guess he'll see right through nonsense like this:

...FTV realises that an atheist and their supporters sees things from a different perspective than other people in society and have their own agenda to push.

My apologies for underestimating you FTV.
 

footprints

Well-Known Member
Incorrect. The proof of evolution is that we see it take place, all the time, right before our eyes.

Yeah I know Jose, just like theists see the work of God take place all the time. It is an amazing world isn't it. People see their own truth everywhere.

Incorrect. There was no manipulation of the DNA in the experiments we conducted. We simply introduced a population into a new environment and observed and documented their evolution.

I am sure you believe that it is a natural phenomena in nature. Yes the fact is due to intervention, not nature, a population into a new environment was introduced. The scientist becoming the Intelligent Designer. The resultant conclusion it changed. In other words the change was documented, not its evolution, albeit the term evolution could be used as "in changed state," it does not offer proof for evolution as in any theory. However a very subjective mind, would and could only see it this way.
 

Kerr

Well-Known Member
Yeah I know Jose, just like theists see the work of God take place all the time. It is an amazing world isn't it. People see their own truth everywhere.
How about multiresistant bacterias nylon eating bacterias?
 
Top