RandomVince said:I would be interested to see an ID avocate:
a) Explain the existence of cancers
and
b) Explain away the evolution of immunity in bacteria and viruses
*puts on ID Advocate hat*
a) BWUH?
b) Huh.
RandomVince said:I would be interested to see an ID avocate:
a) Explain the existence of cancers
and
b) Explain away the evolution of immunity in bacteria and viruses
KHarvey16 said:
That's the kind of logic that the IDers use to reduce evolution to a priori investments. But logic is all about using the evidence to deduce the best possible explanation. When we see clear progressions in the DNA based on descent, then evolution has explanatory power. For instance, one can easily see that a whale is a mammal and must have descended from other mammals if evolution is to be true. And when we actually look at the whale genome, we see clear examples of land-based descent.Bulla564 said:All this time my argument has been that similar DNA sequences ARE NOT the result of common ancestry. Your argument is that DNA proves evolution because "related" species share similar DNA. "Related" species share similar DNA because they evolved from a common ancestor. I'm getting dizzy from the circular logic.
Bulla564 said:It took quite an education to form a basic ribonucleotide through years of testing. I wonder who will be intelligent enough to engineer the other structures of rNA in a lab.
Bulla564 said:Simple studies of biology and genetics have lead to those, not the wasteful hoopla on "plausible" common ancestors.
Bulla564 said:As if I'm posting in support of any Deity (obtuse generalization is something common with some of you). I'm posting in disapproval of "scientific" ad hoc solutions that are a waste of time.
Bulla564 said:And? it's like saying Algebra is based on the premise of Mathematics (DUH), but Mathematics is not a waste of time. Evolution (macro) and its branches are a waste of time.
Bulla564 said:Do what multiple times? speciate mice over and over again?
I don't believe in the genesis, if that's what you are implying. It's nothing more than a Jewish folk tale with a moral message. I don't subscribe to the fable of evolution either.
There are no words. No words that can convey how fucking retarded you are. No words. I am an atheist and despite my criticisms of religion, there are lots of intelligent and articulate people of faith on this forum and while I shall never agree with them, I will at least try to respect their opinion in my own way. And by that, I mean that while I laugh at them, I truly do see what they mean and respect that. I like to argue for the sake of arguing really. The fact that you made me admit that is a testament to your suckage and uselessness.Bulla564 said:We won't have to rely on baseless assumptions anymore.
As much as I disagree with the guy and think he's an ass, that kind of post is more likely to strengthen him then otherwise.TheCardPlayer said:There are no words. No words that can convey how fucking retarded you are. No words. I am an atheist and despite my criticisms of religion, there are lots of intelligent and articulate people of faith on this forum and while I shall never agree with them, I will at least try to respect their opinion in my own way. And by that, I mean that while I laugh at them, I truly do see what they mean and respect that. I like to argue for the sake of arguing really. The fact that you made me admit that is a testament to your suckage and uselessness.
You are the living definition of ''fucktarded imbecile''. I do not think you are a troll unfortunately. You would have dropped the act a while ago. My, my, what a strange creature you are. I always call people dumb on the Internet and insult their education, mainly out of spite and contempt. But I rarely mean it. You however, should know that when I say that you are an incompetent fool with an absolute lack of anything resembling logic, it's not my Internet character speaking. It's me telling you to wake the fuck up and get a primary school diploma. I think the NCLB act was passed just for you.
It's intelligunt desine, my friend. Intelligunt desine.Hitokage said:Why wait?
Which brings me to another point, people who advocate intelligent design rarely have even a basic grasp on what kinds of plants and animals there are in the world outside of what you might find in a zoo or an A to Z book. It's a belief that thrives in ignorance.
!KimiSan said:As much as I disagree with the guy and think he's an ass, that kind of post is more likely to strengthen him then otherwise.
You're not refuting his points, which he may not respond to but it may get into him slightly, you're just tossing personal insults like some kid on a playground.
You're looking pretty dumb yourself. Care to actually refute any of his points, if you can?TheCardPlayer said:
Easy.RandomVince said:I would be interested to see an ID avocate:
a) Explain the existence of cancers
and
b) Explain away the evolution of immunity in bacteria and viruses
KimiSan said:As much as I disagree with the guy and think he's an ass, that kind of post is more likely to strengthen him then otherwise.
You're not refuting his points, which he may not respond to but it may get into him slightly, you're just tossing personal insults like some kid on a playground.
Fenderputty said:So because it takes time to discover things such as this, it's somehow invalidated?
That's like saying all those years it tool science to prove Religion wrong in that the world isn't the center of the Solar System/Universe is somehow invalidated.
I mean ... what kind of thinking is this?
Kipz said:Easy.
a) The devil
b) The devil
Bulla564 said:True. There is enough tangible facts to refute common ancestry, and the ones filling the void are the evolutionists with their own set of beliefs and psychological dispositions.
I have to STRONGLY disagree with you there. Truthful facts NEVER change. The problem is that many evolutionary tales are not and have NEVER been "facts" but rather interpretations/inferences (a.k.a OPINIONS). In science, this is ok. However, evolutionists interpret evidence based on the "fact" that macroevolution is true. This is in it of itself only an OPINION/ASSUMPTION, and not a fact.
When you assume things based on other assumptions, you are not really getting closer to the truth.
Where should we start? the earliest societies of hunters and gatherers and the social ramifications?
Yet genetics and molecular biology are NOT dependent on assumptions of common ancestry, like some claim here.
The burden of proof is on you on that one. Why is similar DNA the result of common ancestry?
It's a difference in interpretation. You have NO EVIDENCE that a bacteria just squeezed in our cells and evolved into our mini power plant, and I can show you the intricate design of a self-sufficient vital structure within our cells, that COULD NOT have arisen by random mutations. Again, you have to assume evolution is true, in order to consider the mitochondria as evidence for evolution.
If we are both looking at a ball in the ground, and you say the ball was kicked from across the street, then bounced in the wall, then it hit a lady that was passing by, to ultimately land at a certain spot, while I say that someone came in and placed the ball there... we both have opinions, but yours is less plausible than mine due to natural laws.
TheExodu5 said:Comon people! Insert more smilies to ridicule GAF posters! It only makes you look MORE classy and intelligent!
Nocebo said:You're looking pretty dumb yourself. Care to actually refute any of his points, if you can?
According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating warm little pond hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.
Bulla564 said:The more we learn, the more we know of their actual functions. SEE!! there IS progress in science!!
RandomVince said:I would be interested to see an ID avocate:
a) Explain the existence of cancers
and
b) Explain away the evolution of immunity in bacteria and viruses
unifin, you're an idiot.
EDIT: There's no way of defending your point of view short of huge assumptions, aka leaps of faith that have no basis except to defend some sort of evolution through random accidents and time/QUOTE]
That was fun!
Evolution is perfectly falsifiable because it has to answer to these questions. What does ID have to answer to? No matter what the evidence is, it's always, "God did it."
And I say to you that the answer to EVERY evolution problem is "Time did it" to explain away microevolutionary shortcomings of the grand theory of common ancestry. Moreover, for a theory that is perfectly falsifiable, you have had darwinism, neo-darwinism, the modern synthesis, and now the post-modern synthesis... they are all ad hoc explanations, because the last one showed to be INADEQUATE to explain the evidence.
You see, I've said before that evolution is indeed the only "plausible" natural explanation. This doesn't make it the truth, but its defense now is simply for political and religious reasons.
What's the point of an animal? Can anyone guess the mind of God? He operates with or without any evidence we see. Evolution, on the other hand, explains animals as necessary for our being. So it could have been falsified a thousand times over by now, but it hasn't, and that makes it a strong theory.
Lol it's the other way around... evolution is an unguided process, and it states that the environment is the one to apply the pressure for natural selection. How did balance in the ecosystems, and interdependent species come about? each one evolved independently? The roles of animals in ecosystems shows an intricate DESIGN of a self-sustainable system. It's funny how this balance and self-sustainability can be seen in the cell, the organ, the biological system, the living organism, the community, the ecosystem, the planet, etc etc. Interrelated systems all working together in a balance to sustain life... hard to see how one random mutation here, and another one there could EVER achieve such balance.
VanMardigan said:Haven't we already shown that there was NO "warm little pond" in early earth? In other words, that the components present were not what Darwin would've expected and weren't even what Miller was using in his famous experiment?
I used a couple of these on organic chem tests. They didn't go over so well.unifin said:If anything, for me, it lends support to the idea that God's mechanisms, if not perfect in the "perfect consequence" sense, at least don't rely on some sort of archaic magical mechanisms to manifest.
Retroviral promoters in the human genome.
MOTIVATION: Endogenous retrovirus (ERV) elements have been shown to contribute promoter sequences that can initiate transcription of adjacent human genes. However, the extent to which retroviral sequences initiate transcription within the human genome is currently unknown. We analyzed genome sequence and high-throughput expression data to systematically evaluate the presence of retroviral promoters in the human genome. RESULTS: We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5' untranslated regions (UTRs). A total of 114 of the ERV-derived transcription start sites can be demonstrated to drive transcription of 97 human genes, producing chimeric transcripts that are initiated within ERV long terminal repeat (LTR) sequences and read-through into known gene sequences. ERV promoters drive tissue-specific and lineage-specific patterns of gene expression and contribute to expression divergence between paralogs. These data illustrate the potential of retroviral sequences to regulate human transcription on a large scale consistent with a substantial effect of ERVs on the function and evolution of the human genome.
Do you realise calling well supported scientific theories "fables" you're just destroying any shred of credibility you thought you had?Bulla564 said:Shhhhh... it undermines their latest awesome fable.
Mistouze said:B-B-BUT it did not happen in nature by itself! GOD DID IT!
Neat stuff btw, I wonder when that RNA bands starts replicating itself. I guess there's still some road from RNA to life.
Kipz said:Do you realise calling well supported scientific theories "fables" you're just destroying any shred of credibility you thought you had?
Scenarios don't have to be probable to happen.TheRagnCajun said:A very cool scientific achievment, but...
Gimme a call when a hypothetical scenario becomes a probable scenario.
Desperado said:Scenarios don't have to be probable to happen.
unifin said:Here's my obligatory "I'm a Christian and I don't find any of this faithshattering" post that happens in literally every science thread in this forum.
Bulla, you're an idiot.
EDIT: There's no way of defending your point of view short of huge assumptions, aka leaps of faith that have no basis except to defend some sort of intelligent design.
Obviously this isn't man creating life, but the fact that we can see how some of the complex molecules that lead to life came to be organically is fascinating.
If anything, for me, it lends support to the idea that God's mechanisms, if not perfect in the "perfect consequence" sense, at least don't rely on some sort of archaic magical mechanisms to manifest.
Ela Hadrun said:YES
Seriously I just don't get it. I don't understand the ID position. I understand, if disagree with, why creationists have the position they have, but if you've acknowledged that Genesis is not literal then I don't see why God can't just set a Big Bang in motion with perfect knowledge of its consequences. Maybe inspire a dinosaur or two.
Order proceeds from chaos. HOW COOL IS THAT. How often does that happen jesus. Certainly it doesn't happen on NeoGaf lol
Bulla564 said:But then you have the natural laws to contend with, and our knowledge of them don't make common ancestry all that plausible (outside of being the only natural unguided process they can come up with).
Be VERY careful with that. Order arrived from chaos through SPECIFIC guidance from scientists. Your are dealing with one of the surest laws of nature, thermodynamics.
TheRagnCajun said:A system can gain 'order' if its not a closed system. but I know where you're going with that. Its the oldest argument used by creationists. The debate extends way beyond that which anyone of GAF is capable of discussing.
Bulla564 said:Lol it's the other way around... evolution is an unguided process, and it states that the environment is the one to apply the pressure for natural selection. How did balance in the ecosystems, and interdependent species come about? each one evolved independently? The roles of animals in ecosystems shows an intricate DESIGN of a self-sustainable system. It's funny how this balance and self-sustainability can be seen in the cell, the organ, the biological system, the living organism, the community, the ecosystem, the planet, etc etc. Interrelated systems all working together in a balance to sustain life... hard to see how one random mutation here, and another one there could EVER achieve such balance.
What do ID has to do with this?Bulla564 said:Oh look... a prediction from Intelligent Design is true:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18535086
Hmmmm....
Instigator said:The balance is very easy to explain, we have countless past scenarios, and can be witnessed, first hand, when an ecosystem is disrupted by one agent. If you have, say, an invasive species introduced by accident, something much more dramatic than any random mutation any native animal could plausibly get, there's a chain events that will usually happen, sometimes leading to whole exctinctions. However, after a while, the ecosystem will be poorer, but a new balance will be reached (unless disrupted again).
What do ID has to do with this?
They simulated conditions present billions of years ago.Bulla564 said:Be VERY careful with that. Order arrived from chaos through SPECIFIC guidance from scientists. Your are dealing with one of the surest laws of nature, thermodynamics.
Instigator said:If there are magical barriers that prevent mutations to accumulate up to a certain point, that ought to be a whole lot easier to demonstrably prove in a lab than, say, breed a animal, generations after generations, until it become a new species.
The former should happen in a much, much shorter timeframe than the latter. That is, if we take Bulla's arguments seriously.
Bulla564 said:Yeah it's for a whole separate thread, but order requires a specific application of energy, not just it being an open system.
Bulla564 said:I agree, but balance was ALREADY there and it was disrupted. A new balance reached after a disruption is a testament to the sustainability of life, and NOT of how balance was achieved in the first place.