Poll: Darwinian Evolution

[bornl33t]

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt...

-Abraham Lincoln

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-EB

[Pyrate Jim]

Evolution is a manifestation of the negative gradient of the ergodic hypothosis.

[Ando]

Evolution is a manifestation of the negative gradient of the ergodic hypothosis.

Layman's terms-

Bla..bla..bla..I like big words..bla..bla..bla..

[beam]

I'm no molecular biologist, but a quick Google search, about 5 minutes of reading, show me that RNA mutations do NOT enhance the viruses themselves, but rather allow the virus population as a WHOLE to survive. There are gains in some areas and losses in other areas.

Although this statement: (if a heterosexual relationship is even required) as it pertains to the propagation of the human species is good comedy. Have you seen the movie Waterworld? Kevin Costner? Epic movie...very well done....the concepts...so realistic.

You should champion such futures.

As for Darwinian evolution being provable? When have we EVER observed a genetic mutation creating a different species of organism? Never.

And so...all the DE believers put on their side the great difference maker....TIME.

Time covers a multitude of errors....sounds almost scriptural.

Are you guys sure that Darwinian Evolution isn't a faith-based concept?

Do you base all requirements in your life off science fiction movies? Why dont you read up on RNA viruses if you dont believe mutations which enhance organisms exist.

"Space flight? Sounds like a good movie....I'll call it Star Trek..."




About the whole homosexual traits breeding out. The urge to reproduce outweighs most everything in nature. It is completely possible a homosexual could have a heterosexual relationship to reproduce(if a heterosexual relationship is even required) then continue on with their homosexual life. In that case the tendency to be homosexual is passed down. Many cultures did not place limits on sexuality, much less attempt to lock people into a single relationship for their lifetime. Even with the social requirement of a heterosexual relationship, a homosexual is then forced into a heterosexual relationship and ends up producing offspring.

So no, homosexuality would not breed out unless it overpowers the want to reproduce, and a negative attitude toward homosexuality actually forces the homosexuals into a situation where they are more likely to have hereditary children.

[Shirow]

who said anything about Christianity? I'm just saying these guys are wrong. I figured out how they argue, by just keep telling others their wrong and never putting out any information I can only win. But since you bring it up, any religion is a better chance then the lack of religion right?

And like I said I don't care..I'm just tired of these threads cause we all know it's not about "gathering information".

I don't know but it would be ironically amusing if the only way to make it to the 'afterlife' would be to not believe in any of the existing religions. The honest answer is - there is no way to know and I don't think that believing in a 'God' just because you think it might secure you a place in 'some afterlife' would work anyway - you would have to assume this 'God' would know that you were just doing it for personal gain.

FWIW, I am an atheist but I have no interest in concern in other peoples beliefs or lack thereof as long as they don't try to use them to influence my life.

[Hexis]

I know I shouldn't, but it's so hard to resist. I'll be civil.

As for Darwinian evolution being provable? When have we EVER observed a genetic mutation creating a different species of organism? Never.

And so...all the DE believers put on their side the great difference maker....TIME.

The part that's missing is that no evolutionary changes create a new species in a single step. The time factor comes into play not to hide problems with the theory, but to multiply the effect of small adaptations (perhaps mutations, perhaps not) over time to create a 'new' species. View any small segment of time and the changes will be so subtle that they may not be observable. Over time this all adds up. This portion of evolution has been modeled and tested in many ways.

You can't really "prove" it. Most/Some/All/A majority/whatever of the testing, examination and modeling has so far been consistent with the evolution model. That explanation for the development of life as we know it is pretty good until we perhaps find a model that better describes the observations.

Spitting out an alternative "theory" is great. If it's not testable then there is significantly less evidence that said alternative is feasible.

[Hilltop Customs]

I'm no molecular biologist, but a quick Google search, about 5 minutes of reading, show me that RNA mutations do NOT enhance the viruses themselves, but rather allow the virus population as a WHOLE to survive. There are gains in some areas and losses in other areas.

Yes, thats the idea of behind evolution...variation in population traits....come a large extinction of the population, some will be more adaptable to the environment. With these viruses the die-off happens each and every reproduction. With more complex organisms, the environment is more stable and DNA is checked as it is duplicated.... massively reducing the number of errors in DNA reproduction and reducing the likelyhood that their environment will cause a dramatic population reduction. In your original statement you said enhancements do not exits, and now you say there are gains, that is a contradiction.

Although this statement: (if a heterosexual relationship is even required) as it pertains to the propagation of the human species is good comedy. Have you seen the movie Waterworld? Kevin Costner? Epic movie...very well done....the concepts...so realistic.

Read what your responding to, no one specified we were discussing only human sexuality. You are making assumptions after the fact and applying them to my statement. Sorry, from now on I will try to predict your random assumptions be and form my post accordingly.

As for Darwinian evolution being provable? When have we EVER observed a genetic mutation creating a different species of organism? Never.

And so...all the DE believers put on their side the great difference maker....TIME.

Time covers a multitude of errors....sounds almost scriptural.

Are you guys sure that Darwinian Evolution isn't a faith-based concept?

Faith based concepts do not allow you to challenge belief, science promotes and accepts all challenges and is willing to fix errors.

So then if it's not genetic then it is either choice or psychological disorder? It's fun to watch you guys talk like you are all knowing because of what you believe. You cannot prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that anything you speak of is true, yet you take it for fact? Isn't that bad science? Proving a theory right instead of wrong? It sounds to me like you "believe" in evolution. Is this not a form of faith also? I mean, I personally have never seen anything evolve, have you?

Ever stop to consider people were simply responding to your theory, and not trying to change the way you think? You posted that "homosexuality should not exist if it is genetic", posters provided possible ways which it could still easily exist. I didnt see anyone come out saying "I feel sorry for you"

I feel sorry for you people, in thinking you are wise you became fools. I'm not pushing my believes either. Cause if I'm wrong I lost nothing, if I'm right I won everything. I like those odds.

How is that not pushing your belief? That is exactly how advertising works, first you put down your potential customer, "I feel sorry for you people....you became fools", then you attempt to appear non-bias "I'm not pushing my beliefs either", and finally you hit them with the pitch line.

[beam]

Read what your responding to, no one specified we were discussing only human sexuality. You are making assumptions after the fact and applying them to my statement. Sorry, from now on I will try to predict your random assumptions be and form my post accordingly.

Read what I'm responding to...OK.

About the whole homosexual traits breeding out. The urge to reproduce outweighs most everything in nature. It is completely possible a homosexual could have a heterosexual relationship to reproduce(if a heterosexual relationship is even required) then continue on with their homosexual life. In that case the tendency to be homosexual is passed down. Many cultures did not place limits on sexuality, much less attempt to lock people into a single relationship for their lifetime. Even with the social requirement of a heterosexual relationship, a homosexual is then forced into a heterosexual relationship and ends up producing offspring.

I think the following words are in there people, relationships, cultures, social requirements

[Hilltop Customs]

Read what I'm responding to...OK.



I think the following words are in there people, relationships, cultures, social requirements

Sentences are complete thoughts. Nowhere prior to the portion in parenthesis were those words uses, nor were they used in the sentence itself. You made an assumption. Here if its not clear enough for you, I thought it was a pretty clear and obvious distinction without the need for separation:



"About the whole homosexual traits breeding out. The urge to reproduce outweighs most everything in nature. It is completely possible a homosexual could have a heterosexual relationship to reproduce(if a heterosexual relationship is even required) then continue on with their homosexual life. In that case the tendency to be homosexual is passed down.

Many cultures did not place limits on sexuality, much less attempt to lock people into a single relationship for their lifetime. Even with the social requirement of a heterosexual relationship, a homosexual is then forced into a heterosexual relationship and ends up producing offspring."

[Hilltop Customs]

"'...there is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency'. They hypothesized that "while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals' reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them". Their results suggested that "genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population".[86] A 2009 study also suggested a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual people from the maternal line (but not in those related from the paternal one)."

fecundity - fertility

[CaliMagFan]

Hilltop,

I really appreciate your thoughts in this thread, you've taken time to respond to some really mind numbing rants by a couple of the outspoken and under-listening members of the gallery.

Such is the story of our great (in some but not all ways) nation.

[CaliMagFan]

As for Darwinian evolution being provable? When have we EVER observed a genetic mutation creating a different species of organism? Never.

Sorry, this is a flat-out lie. We have tons of examples of plant speciation and some examples of animal speciation. Bacteria undergo enough genetic change over several generations (with sufficient selective pressures) that, were they sexually reproducing, they'd be reproductively isolated and speciated.

Eg..

Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:

"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."

from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[bornl33t]

I don't know but it would be ironically amusing if the only way to make it to the 'afterlife' would be to not believe in any of the existing religions. The honest answer is - there is no way to know and I don't think that believing in a 'God' just because you think it might secure you a place in 'some afterlife' would work anyway - you would have to assume this 'God' would know that you were just doing it for personal gain.

FWIW, I am an atheist but I have no interest in concern in other peoples beliefs or lack thereof as long as they don't try to use them to influence my life.

Actually you are agnostic. But that's a whole different story.

[CaliMagFan]

Actually you are agnostic. But that's a whole different story.

I think many atheists are actually agnostic. They simply go by the title "atheist" because it is more widely know.

I'm an agnostic with regard to the tooth fairy, unicorns, Thor, Zeus, and ALL other gods and mythical beings. I certainly cannot prove they do not exist, but that's OK. I understand the burden of proof to be on the believer- the person who asserts a belief in a thing.

Of course the cool thing about about science is that the goal is to DISPROVE the current hypothesis. Science doesn't concern itself with finding "facts to prove why something is right" it's concerned with simply "finding facts".

The strength of evolution is that every fact about life on earth that has ever been uncovered coincides with Darwin's theory of Evolution. Science does not go out of its way to prove ANYTHING- it does actively try to disprove the status quo, be it a scientific hypothesis or a religious dogma.

Ok, continue the fun...

Please explain your thoughts well, and keep it civil and open.

Thanks!

[bornl33t]

I think many atheists are actually agnostic. They simply go by the title "atheist" because it is more widely know.

I'm an agnostic with regard to the tooth fairy, unicorns, Thor, Zeus, and ALL other gods and mythical beings. I certainly cannot prove they do not exist, but that's OK. I understand the burden of proof to be on the believer- the person who asserts a belief in a thing.

Of course the cool thing about about science is that the goal is to DISPROVE the current hypothesis. Science doesn't concern itself with finding "facts to prove why something is right" it's concerned with simply "finding facts".

The strength of evolution is that every fact about life on earth that has ever been uncovered coincides with Darwin's theory of Evolution. Science does not go out of its way to prove ANYTHING- it does actively try to disprove the status quo, be it a scientific hypothesis or a religious dogma.

Ok, continue the fun...

Please explain your thoughts well, and keep it civil and open.

Thanks!

Stop being so arrogant, you are not as smart as you think you are.