Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Challenge to Evolutionists

Pages: (21) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,13:09    Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 19 2007,12:12) SS, I think you might accidentally be heading in the right general direction but I need to know for sure.  Please get specific and expand on this idea that the mind influences genetic variation and environmental adaptation.  What are the mechanisms behind this or the evidence you believe that points you in this direction?  IMO, you use of the term may be misleading but let's see how you frame it. I think real evolution, at least the evolution (ie..change over time) of phenotype has nothing to do with genes.  Instead, change is just an adaptive response from within each organism.  Real evolution, the heritable kind, happens during development.  You can see a perfect example here: http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/cover (page 2) "To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations" Therefore, if a population of fleas all experience the same environmental cue (predators in this case) then the whole population will emerge with the same trait...(new spines in this case).   Do you thus agree that this could very well give the illusion of evolution if the experiment was not done in a controlled way?....if scientists had merely observed a population of fleas one year, and then came back a few years later only to notice that the spines had grown, would it not be easy to blindly attribute this change to RMNS?  Of course!  And that's exactly what has happened to the peppered moth, Darwin's finches and Dr. GH's lizards.  Go ahead, look up those types of lizard Dr. GH was talking about and you'll find that natural selection was actually not the reason they changed -- phenotypic plasticity was.   What is the mechanism here?  I don't know -- you tell me...how can you put a "mechanism" on the mind?  The mind is not definable and is certainly not a machine.  The mind is not a material substance but a mental/spiritual process. Ultimatley, natural selection relies on pools of random genetic variation (so it can build up a population genetically)....but I simply do not believe in NS because I do not believe there are such things as pools of random genetic variation because, for one thing, it turns out that genes don't define/dictate morphological traits, but also, each creature in a population is going to be experiencing the same cues in which to adapt to....therefore evolution will happen quickly, purposefully, horizontally across the population.

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,13:26    Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,13:09) ....therefore evolution will happen quickly, purposefully, horizontally across the population. Then why are there still monkeys?   -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,14:14    Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 19 2007,13:26) Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,13:09) ....therefore evolution will happen quickly, purposefully, horizontally across the population. Then why are there still monkeys?   ;) because creatures can't change into something they aren't.  A worm, for example, could never change into a centipede because a centipede is not a worm with legs.   These two creatures are completely different.  What are the limits to change?   I don't know....that would be an excellent thing for science to experiment with...unfortunately, however, they never have....so who knows.   A human, for example, if forced to live in or near the water, might be able to adapt to that new environment phenotypically -- but even if that were to happen, humans would still, and always be, humans.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,14:18    Oooooohhhh!  I got one! How 'bout this: Quote Show me some instances of mutations that add information to the genome I'm pretty sure this is unresolved.  You DO want to resolve it, don't you? Or are your pants just full of shit? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,14:29    Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,14:14)     Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 19 2007,13:26)       Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,13:09) ....therefore evolution will happen quickly, purposefully, horizontally across the population. Then why are there still monkeys?   ;) because creatures can't change into something they aren't.  A worm, for example, could never change into a centipede because a centipede is not a worm with legs.   These two creatures are completely different.  What are the limits to change?   I don't know....that would be an excellent thing for science to experiment with...unfortunately, however, they never have....so who knows.   Wow. The ark must have been crammed to the rafters then.  Unless Noah had some kind of "Honey, I Shrunk every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort" technology.     Quote A human, for example, if forced to live in or near the water, might be able to adapt to that new environment phenotypically -- but even if that were to happen, humans would still, and always be, humans. But, what about a monkey living near water? -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,14:32    Quote (blipey @ Sep. 19 2007,14:18) Oooooohhhh!  I got one! How 'bout this: Quote Show me some instances of mutations that add information to the genome I'm pretty sure this is unresolved.  You DO want to resolve it, don't you? Or are your pants just full of shit? just a hint, if you care to have a discussion with me you'll stop acting like a rabid dog.  Once you show you can act like an adult and not like 12-year-old I'll respond to you.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,14:37    Interesting.  This coming from a person who instead of answering questions, shotguns a bunch of random bits of googled information, demands that all of them be answered and when questioned about them, shotguns another load of unrelated stuff. Who's the 12 year old? Adults know that a discussion progresses in a logical order.  Would you care to explain the logic of your comments? Until then, how about resolving this issue: 1.  Either your question about genetic information cannot be answered because the definition of genetic information is unknown OR 2.  you can give us this definition and the question is meaningful. Which side do you come down on? Notice that this will require you to type one of the following things: (1) or (2) That's not too hard, is it? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,14:50    Wait.  I think I know what you mean now.  You think it is childish to expect answers to a question.  You don't think it is a reasonable thing to provide other people with your superior knowledge. I'm sorry, I'll go and try to find someone who knows enough to share. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

dochocson Posts: 62 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,14:54    Man, you cannot buy this kind of entertainment. Now that I'm out of popcorn, I have to ask: supersport: Does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth? -------------- All bleeding stops...eventually.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,14:57    Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,14:09) I think real evolution, at least the evolution (ie..change over time) of phenotype has nothing to do with genes...blah blah blah. Blah. Supersport, you need to understand that, while you are entitled to pleasure yourself with your idiosyncratic thoughts on these matters, yours is a stance of abject and determined ignorance both of the biological and evolutionary sciences and of the arduous efforts of thousands of scientists working around the world to better characterize and understand the history of life on earth. The paranoid and conspiratorial world inhabited by crackpot-creationist-gadflies such as yourself, a world in which Darwinists are desperately striving to hide embarrassing truths of which you are champions, is a self-aggrandizing masturbatory fantasy of your own creation. There is zero resemblance and zero dialog between your 'gotcha' style contrived challenges and the real efforts of real scientists and real scientific communities as they attempt to build better approximations of the truth of things - communities that take no note of your ramblings, other than for sport. This is because approaching the truth is not among your goals. The horseshit you (and your ilk) hurl from your parents' basements is tiresome and empty. You are not a participant in serious discourse on these matters. No one here really gives a rat's ass about what you think. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,14:57    Quote (dochocson @ Sep. 19 2007,14:54) Man, you cannot buy this kind of entertainment. Now that I'm out of popcorn, I have to ask: supersport: Does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth? And how far away are the stars? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,15:04    So what that article is saying is that genes have what amounts to on/off switches that can also be passed on to descendants, sometimes with the setting left intact? And those switches can sometimes be flipped by environmental factors? Is that involved in species that alternate between two or three forms over a number of generations? Sounds like researchers might have to sequence the DNA before and after to be sure if a non-transitory change occurred. Henry

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,15:11    Am I missing something, or did Supersport absolutely never acknowledge this?: Quote CARM's SS is a troll, pure and simple.  He told me privately that he  doesn't believe a word he posts, that it's all entertainment during a boring cubicle job in "real estate". -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,15:13    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2007,15:11) Am I missing something, or did Supersport absolutely never acknowledge this?: Quote CARM's SS is a troll, pure and simple.  He told me privately that he  doesn't believe a word he posts, that it's all entertainment during a boring cubicle job in "real estate". Well, he did also ignore this. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,15:23    Quote (k.e @ Sep. 18 2007,09:14) I wish someone would sue spineless invertebrate's Can you sue congress? -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,15:40    SS: Quote A worm, for example, could never change into a centipede because a centipede is not a worm with legs. Well, uh, actually--I hate to be the first to break this to you, if I am--but a centipede is basically a worm with legs and an exoskeleton.  Yeah, it gets more complicated than that, for sure, but at a certain level of reduction, it's still true. Even more do I hate to break this to you, but YOU are, on some sufficiently-essential level, just a large, highly-cephalized worm with limbs and some internal mineralized structural supports... It's like those worms are always sayin': "If worms, centipedes, and humans all arose from a common ancestor, then why are there still centipedes and humans?"

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,15:43    Quote (slpage @ Sep. 18 2007,18:04) Ah, Superspammer finds yet another place to regurgipost. So, Sport - have you figgered out where RNA transcripts come from? Know what "information" is? Read my post explaining how Pellionisz isn't really telling you the whole truth about junkDNA? Nah - you don't read stuff.... Dr. Page!  How you be? At least no chance that the AtBC regulars might take sporty seriously. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,15:47    Quote (slpage @ Sep. 18 2007,18:39) Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:09) Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:07) supersport:     Quote bodies and minds get passed down, not genes. I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part? if evos can say "genes" or the "genome" get passed down without any proof then I can say the mind can get passed down.  Neither is science. So, when your mommy and daddy touched their thingies together, they really put their minds and bodies in mommiy's woowoo, not a sperm and an egg each with half of the diploid complement of chromosomes? I'm shocked! Wow, now that's a head job, or a Head Case. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:24    delete.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:33    Not that I'm not dazzled, but the link doesn't work. And you only answered half the question. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:38    This is your house? Does your non-cubicle job teach you how to share photos? I also see you're using the tried and true "argument by house size".  Surely that means your science is better than mine. Now, how about that genetic information thing? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:39    delete.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:42    Very nice.  Looks big enough for your super-duper, top secret, astrophysics lab.  You know, the one in which you figured out what genetic information is. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:46    Quote (blipey @ Sep. 19 2007,16:42) Very nice.  Looks big enough for your super-duper, top secret, astrophysics lab.  You know, the one in which you figured out what genetic information is. I already know what it is: a physical manifestation of the mind.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:49    Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,16:46) Quote (blipey @ Sep. 19 2007,16:42) Very nice.  Looks big enough for your super-duper, top secret, astrophysics lab.  You know, the one in which you figured out what genetic information is. I already know what it is: a physical manifestation of the mind. Now, make a prediction ;-) What follows from that that can be verified? Nothing or something? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:50    Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,22:46) Quote (blipey @ Sep. 19 2007,16:42) Very nice.  Looks big enough for your super-duper, top secret, astrophysics lab.  You know, the one in which you figured out what genetic information is. I already know what it is: a physical manifestation of the mind. Evidence for that? No, you can't just say "prove it isn't" because the onus is on YOU. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:51    Mr Sport Not to detract from the red-herringness of the discussion about your house, but you seem to have left this question dangling. You claimed that mental processes can generate life instantly. I asked for some scientific proof (e.g. a peer-reviewed publication or two). So far, you have ignored this completely. So I'm asking again, and please recall that I did make a good faith effort to answer the question in your O.P. If mental processes can generate life, surely your mental processes can motivate your fingers to the keyboard and give me the answer to the question above. Thanks again in advance for ignoring this question. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:51    By the way, just to follow up on DR GH's comment about Anolis lizards (and their legs) proving natural selection...he might want to check this out: http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/10937208 "Species of Anolis lizards that use broad substrates have long legs, which provide enhanced maximal sprint speed, whereas species that use narrow surfaces have short legs, which permit careful movements. We raised hatchling A. sagrei in terraria provided with only broad or only narrow surfaces. At the end of the experiment, lizards in the broad treatment had relatively longer hindlimbs than lizards in the narrow treatment. These results indicate that not only is hindlimb length a plastic trait in these lizards, but that this plasticity leads to the production of phenotypes appropriate to particular environments. Comparison to hindlimb lengths of other Anolis species indicates that the range of plasticity is limited compared to the diversity shown throughout the anole radiation. Nonetheless, this plasticity potentially could have played an important role in the early stages of the Caribbean anole radiation." So in otherwords, natural selection is hardly proven here, in fact, the evidence shows that simple plasticity is the explanation.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:52    Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,16:39) http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/Supersport22/ hey you brought it up. Lovely. So you're not a redneck landlord. Yay. You only answered half the question. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

supersport Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:54    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2007,16:52) Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,16:39) http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/Supersport22/ hey you brought it up. Lovely. So you're not a redneck landlord. Yay. You only answered half the question. oh, but I am....I use both those terms quite loosely though.

Pages: (21) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard