Evolution - Possibly Not True
- Thread starter Graeme
- Start date
RE: Evolution - Simply Not True
read "the self organizing universe" by erich jantsch if you can find a copy.
read "the self organizing universe" by erich jantsch if you can find a copy.
Re: Evolution - Simply Not True
Life Form - Millions of Years Since First Known Appearance (Approximate)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microbial (procaryotic cells) 3,500
Complex (eucaryotic cells) 2,000
First multicellular animals 670
Shell-bearing animals 540
Vertebrates (simple fishes) 490
Amphibians 350
Reptiles 310
Mammals 200
Nonhuman primates 60
Earliest apes 25
Australopithecine ancestors of humans 4
Modern humans 0 .15 (150,000 years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or you believe all forms of life simply arrived at the same time. What other explanation is there?
Life Form - Millions of Years Since First Known Appearance (Approximate)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microbial (procaryotic cells) 3,500
Complex (eucaryotic cells) 2,000
First multicellular animals 670
Shell-bearing animals 540
Vertebrates (simple fishes) 490
Amphibians 350
Reptiles 310
Mammals 200
Nonhuman primates 60
Earliest apes 25
Australopithecine ancestors of humans 4
Modern humans 0 .15 (150,000 years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or you believe all forms of life simply arrived at the same time. What other explanation is there?
Re: RE: Evolution - Simply Not True
while I may still read it, the book was written in 1980,
There have been many discovers since then, including protiens required by DNA which can not be created by randomly mixing the proper chemicals, or via any known method with the exception of being created using RNA sequencing.
the caracal kid said:
while I may still read it, the book was written in 1980,
There have been many discovers since then, including protiens required by DNA which can not be created by randomly mixing the proper chemicals, or via any known method with the exception of being created using RNA sequencing.
RE: Evolution - Simply Not True
That is a really stupid statement. Why would it be called the THEORY of evolution if it was a FACT. I am dumbfounded by your ignorance and arrogance.
You address none of the problems which I lay out I will quote them again:
That is a really stupid statement. Why would it be called the THEORY of evolution if it was a FACT. I am dumbfounded by your ignorance and arrogance.
You address none of the problems which I lay out I will quote them again:
Graeme said:
Graeme said:
Re: RE: Evolution - Simply Not True
Speaking of ignorance and arrogance and stupid statements... You clearly have no idea what THEORY means in science, you don't understand the evidence for evolution, and you have no concept of what natural selection means or how it operates. You are simply repeating tired old creationist arguments that have been thoroughly discredited repeatedly by people who do understand all those things. Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldridge, Richard Dawkins, Ernst Mayr, to name a few. Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution, it is one of the great unifying and explanatory ideas of science, an intellectual achievement on a par with Newton's and Einstein's work. The evidence, analyses, and explanations are out there, freely available if you care to look for them.
I don't propose to educate you, I've been down that road before, here and elsewhere, and I can see it'd be pretty much a wasted effort as long as you cling to your evidence-free, logic-free religious explanations. Your education is your problem, and so far you've chosen to remain ignorant, about science at least. I will, however, point out that evolution does have completely satisfactory answers to your three ignorant questions, which are rooted in false assumptions, but you can do your own homework.
Graeme said:
Speaking of ignorance and arrogance and stupid statements... You clearly have no idea what THEORY means in science, you don't understand the evidence for evolution, and you have no concept of what natural selection means or how it operates. You are simply repeating tired old creationist arguments that have been thoroughly discredited repeatedly by people who do understand all those things. Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldridge, Richard Dawkins, Ernst Mayr, to name a few. Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution, it is one of the great unifying and explanatory ideas of science, an intellectual achievement on a par with Newton's and Einstein's work. The evidence, analyses, and explanations are out there, freely available if you care to look for them.
I don't propose to educate you, I've been down that road before, here and elsewhere, and I can see it'd be pretty much a wasted effort as long as you cling to your evidence-free, logic-free religious explanations. Your education is your problem, and so far you've chosen to remain ignorant, about science at least. I will, however, point out that evolution does have completely satisfactory answers to your three ignorant questions, which are rooted in false assumptions, but you can do your own homework.
Re: Evolution - Simply Not True
Dexter's post pretty much said it all, but I found the following article to be fascinating reading:
Fruit fly genetics
Martin Brookes on how a Russian-born biologist took the ordinary fruit fly, fused Darwin with genetics and created history
Martin Brookes
Guardian
Thursday March 29, 2001
B iologists, like belly buttons, tend to fall into one of two categories, "innies" or "outies". Innies spend their entire working lives indoors. They are most comfortable sitting at the computer or laboratory bench and develop acute migraines when exposed to direct sunlight. To this group belong the biochemists, molecular biologists, geneticists and mathematical modellers.
By contrast, outies are laboratory illiterate. They understand how to open the fridge door but that is as far as their indoor knowledge extends. None of this matters to an outie, of course. Outies are more interested in devoting all their energy to prodigious beard growth and memorising the Latin names of a thousand different bird species.
Occasionally, however, you come across a third category of biologist, someone who is neither an innie, nor an outie, but an "in-betweenie". These are the rare individuals who feel equally at home in both artificial and natural light, people who can distinguish Petri dishes from pelicans, and can somehow manage to incorporate both into a single experiment.
Perhaps the first and certainly the greatest example of an in-betweenie was Russian-born biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky. He showed what could be achieved when white coats were combined with wellingtons. Back in the 1930s, he began dusting down Darwinian evolution to leave it looking modern, shiny and new.
In the early decades of the 20th century, with Darwin dead and Mendel on their minds, scientists were creating an entirely new way of looking at evolution. Instead of thinking about populations of plants and animals as collections of individuals, biologists like Dobzhansky began thinking exclusively in terms of genes and gene pools. As good as Darwin's evolutionary argument was, it had always lacked direct experimental evidence. By combining the fledgling science of genetics with Darwinian evolution, Dobzhansky gave Darwin's ideas the empirical kick up the backside they had been crying out for.
But Dobzhansky's success was no solo affair. He would have got nowhere without his insect comrade, the fruit fly, Drosophila pseudoobscura. His choice of experimental organism may have seemed unusual. After all, Dobzhansky's tiny fruit flies were hardly a match for Darwin's finches, or so it seemed. But Dobzhansky chose wisely. By the 1930s, fruit flies had already proved themselves as pioneers in genetics research. They were cheap, prolific and easy to breed. They also had the biggest chromosomes that anyone had ever seen.
Fruit flies, like footballers, produce immense quantities of saliva. The chromosomes inside the fruit fly's salivary glands are huge - a thousand times thicker than normal. Each chromosome is like a packet of spaghetti, made up of many parallel strands of DNA that have failed to separate. Chemical staining of these super-sized chromosomes reveals dark horizontal bands along their length, distinct landmarks corresponding to the positions of specific genes. When these chromosomes were first discovered in the 1930s, it was as revolutionary as the discovery of genetic fingerprints fifty years later. These super-sized chromosomes were like biological barcodes that gave biologists the first direct glimpse of genetic differences between individuals and populations.
To Dobzhansky, the fruit fly chromosomes were a godsend and he spent years in the Californian wilderness collecting flies for analysis in the laboratory. His first discovery was that populations of flies living in different areas could be distinguished by the banding patterns of their chromosomes. In other words, populations were not genetically uniform, but differed from place to place. This may sound like common sense today and, even back then, it was what many biologists had suspected but it was the first time that anyone had provided the experimental proof. Yet more amazing was the discovery that these genetic differences were not static, but could change over remarkably short time scales. In the struggle for existence, natural selection favoured different chromosome types at different times of the year. These results were epoch-making for evolutionary biology. Because Darwinian natural selection had traditionally been considered a slow paced affair that was difficult - if not impossible - to test experimentally, critics had often dismissed the subject as unscientific. But here was a perfect demonstration of evolution in action. This was no million-year wait for a two millimetre increase in the length of a leg bone. This was evolutionary change in front of your very eyes.
In accumulating genetic differences, Dobzhansky saw how two populations might also accumulate differences in body size, colour, genital architecture, behavioural idiosyncrasies, and a thousand other characteristics that could eventually make them reluctant or unable to mate with one another. In these distinct genetic profiles, Dobzhansky believed he was seeing the origin of species in its infancy.
Dobzhansky had shown what was possible when scientists were willing to abandon their prejudices and break with tradition. His experiments with the fly brought about a sea change in evolutionary attitudes. Fruit fly genetics made evolution and the origin of species more credible to a once sceptical scientific community. Genetics not only tightened up Darwin's theory, it also turned evolutionary biology into a rigorous experimental science. Darwin would have given anything for a share of Dobzhansky's experimental spoils. Serves him right for looking at finches rather than flies.
Dexter's post pretty much said it all, but I found the following article to be fascinating reading:
Fruit fly genetics
Martin Brookes on how a Russian-born biologist took the ordinary fruit fly, fused Darwin with genetics and created history
Martin Brookes
Guardian
Thursday March 29, 2001
B iologists, like belly buttons, tend to fall into one of two categories, "innies" or "outies". Innies spend their entire working lives indoors. They are most comfortable sitting at the computer or laboratory bench and develop acute migraines when exposed to direct sunlight. To this group belong the biochemists, molecular biologists, geneticists and mathematical modellers.
By contrast, outies are laboratory illiterate. They understand how to open the fridge door but that is as far as their indoor knowledge extends. None of this matters to an outie, of course. Outies are more interested in devoting all their energy to prodigious beard growth and memorising the Latin names of a thousand different bird species.
Occasionally, however, you come across a third category of biologist, someone who is neither an innie, nor an outie, but an "in-betweenie". These are the rare individuals who feel equally at home in both artificial and natural light, people who can distinguish Petri dishes from pelicans, and can somehow manage to incorporate both into a single experiment.
Perhaps the first and certainly the greatest example of an in-betweenie was Russian-born biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky. He showed what could be achieved when white coats were combined with wellingtons. Back in the 1930s, he began dusting down Darwinian evolution to leave it looking modern, shiny and new.
In the early decades of the 20th century, with Darwin dead and Mendel on their minds, scientists were creating an entirely new way of looking at evolution. Instead of thinking about populations of plants and animals as collections of individuals, biologists like Dobzhansky began thinking exclusively in terms of genes and gene pools. As good as Darwin's evolutionary argument was, it had always lacked direct experimental evidence. By combining the fledgling science of genetics with Darwinian evolution, Dobzhansky gave Darwin's ideas the empirical kick up the backside they had been crying out for.
But Dobzhansky's success was no solo affair. He would have got nowhere without his insect comrade, the fruit fly, Drosophila pseudoobscura. His choice of experimental organism may have seemed unusual. After all, Dobzhansky's tiny fruit flies were hardly a match for Darwin's finches, or so it seemed. But Dobzhansky chose wisely. By the 1930s, fruit flies had already proved themselves as pioneers in genetics research. They were cheap, prolific and easy to breed. They also had the biggest chromosomes that anyone had ever seen.
Fruit flies, like footballers, produce immense quantities of saliva. The chromosomes inside the fruit fly's salivary glands are huge - a thousand times thicker than normal. Each chromosome is like a packet of spaghetti, made up of many parallel strands of DNA that have failed to separate. Chemical staining of these super-sized chromosomes reveals dark horizontal bands along their length, distinct landmarks corresponding to the positions of specific genes. When these chromosomes were first discovered in the 1930s, it was as revolutionary as the discovery of genetic fingerprints fifty years later. These super-sized chromosomes were like biological barcodes that gave biologists the first direct glimpse of genetic differences between individuals and populations.
To Dobzhansky, the fruit fly chromosomes were a godsend and he spent years in the Californian wilderness collecting flies for analysis in the laboratory. His first discovery was that populations of flies living in different areas could be distinguished by the banding patterns of their chromosomes. In other words, populations were not genetically uniform, but differed from place to place. This may sound like common sense today and, even back then, it was what many biologists had suspected but it was the first time that anyone had provided the experimental proof. Yet more amazing was the discovery that these genetic differences were not static, but could change over remarkably short time scales. In the struggle for existence, natural selection favoured different chromosome types at different times of the year. These results were epoch-making for evolutionary biology. Because Darwinian natural selection had traditionally been considered a slow paced affair that was difficult - if not impossible - to test experimentally, critics had often dismissed the subject as unscientific. But here was a perfect demonstration of evolution in action. This was no million-year wait for a two millimetre increase in the length of a leg bone. This was evolutionary change in front of your very eyes.
In accumulating genetic differences, Dobzhansky saw how two populations might also accumulate differences in body size, colour, genital architecture, behavioural idiosyncrasies, and a thousand other characteristics that could eventually make them reluctant or unable to mate with one another. In these distinct genetic profiles, Dobzhansky believed he was seeing the origin of species in its infancy.
Dobzhansky had shown what was possible when scientists were willing to abandon their prejudices and break with tradition. His experiments with the fly brought about a sea change in evolutionary attitudes. Fruit fly genetics made evolution and the origin of species more credible to a once sceptical scientific community. Genetics not only tightened up Darwin's theory, it also turned evolutionary biology into a rigorous experimental science. Darwin would have given anything for a share of Dobzhansky's experimental spoils. Serves him right for looking at finches rather than flies.
RE: Evolution - Simply Not True
Graeme
if evolution is not true, then how do you explain what might have happened? or what do you purpose?
Graeme
if evolution is not true, then how do you explain what might have happened? or what do you purpose?
RE: Evolution - Simply Not True
Yeah, I'm sure you can answer those questions, especially the last one.
I am a man of science I love the drive to figure out how things work. Personally my greatest interest is in Electronics and Artificial intelligence. I have won numerous robotics competitions, I hold 2 patents, and operate a profitable business in my field.
You aren't speaking with an idiot.
While no, biology isn't my forte, I fully understand what natural selection is and how it is thought to work. I also understand that before life, there couldn't have been natural selection. (part of point 3)
I understand what a competent theory is, and I can tell when there is an insurmountable problem with a particular theory. I have not said that a newer better theory won't come about, all I have said is that the current one stinks. Evolution by Darwin's standards required a far greater number of years than we now presume there have been. When Darwin came up with his theory it was believed the earth was infinite in age. Thanks to General/Special Relativity we are pretty damn sure that isn't the case.
Just because some folks have made the statement that biology doesn't make sense without evolution, doesn't mean it's true, there could be another explanation.
I have looked for explanations, there aren't any. Certainly none that anyone is willing to stand behind. I couldn't find one.
Lets simplify this argument for a moment and just talk about converting amino acids in to an enzyme. An enzyme which the DNA depends on to survive.
First using transcribing RNA is formed from DNA, then the RNA and a chain of amino acids enter a Ribosome, the chain of amino acids sorts aligns itself with the RNA to form a protein chain, which then leaves the ribosome and is then folded at which time it can then provide the necessary service to keep the DNA alive.
You see to create the enzymes you must have DNA, but to have the DNA you must have the enzymes. The enzymes have been proven to be unable to form without the use of DNA. It is well accepted that the DNA cannot exist without the enzymes it creates.
Yeah, I'm sure you can answer those questions, especially the last one.
I am a man of science I love the drive to figure out how things work. Personally my greatest interest is in Electronics and Artificial intelligence. I have won numerous robotics competitions, I hold 2 patents, and operate a profitable business in my field.
You aren't speaking with an idiot.
While no, biology isn't my forte, I fully understand what natural selection is and how it is thought to work. I also understand that before life, there couldn't have been natural selection. (part of point 3)
I understand what a competent theory is, and I can tell when there is an insurmountable problem with a particular theory. I have not said that a newer better theory won't come about, all I have said is that the current one stinks. Evolution by Darwin's standards required a far greater number of years than we now presume there have been. When Darwin came up with his theory it was believed the earth was infinite in age. Thanks to General/Special Relativity we are pretty damn sure that isn't the case.
Just because some folks have made the statement that biology doesn't make sense without evolution, doesn't mean it's true, there could be another explanation.
I have looked for explanations, there aren't any. Certainly none that anyone is willing to stand behind. I couldn't find one.
Lets simplify this argument for a moment and just talk about converting amino acids in to an enzyme. An enzyme which the DNA depends on to survive.
First using transcribing RNA is formed from DNA, then the RNA and a chain of amino acids enter a Ribosome, the chain of amino acids sorts aligns itself with the RNA to form a protein chain, which then leaves the ribosome and is then folded at which time it can then provide the necessary service to keep the DNA alive.
You see to create the enzymes you must have DNA, but to have the DNA you must have the enzymes. The enzymes have been proven to be unable to form without the use of DNA. It is well accepted that the DNA cannot exist without the enzymes it creates.
Re: RE: Evolution - Simply Not True
Don't give a prize for youself. You will have it if you deserve it. :wink:
Graeme said:
Don't give a prize for youself. You will have it if you deserve it. :wink:
RE: Evolution - Simply Not True
As I understand, you believe that Evolution theory is not true, but you don't have another one to replace it with, right?
As I understand, you believe that Evolution theory is not true, but you don't have another one to replace it with, right?