Also considered one of the reasons sickle cell is more prominent in blacks, right? An example of natural selection at work.Geebs wrote:However, sickle cell trait (just one of the sicke genes) protects the carrier from malaria. This means that despite the devastating consequences of the homozygous condition, the heterozygous condition is evolutionarily conserved in areas where malaria is endemic, such as in Africa. Hence a so called "bad gene" saves a lot of lives at the expense of generating a few individuals with sickle cell disease.
I had forgotten about that.Geebs wrote:... the sort of condition you might think was due to "bad genes"
However, sickle cell trait (just one of the sicke genes) protects the carrier from malaria. This means that despite the devastating consequences of the homozygous condition, the heterozygous condition is evolutionarily conserved in areas where malaria is endemic, such as in Africa. Hence a so called "bad gene" saves a lot of lives at the expense of generating a few individuals with sickle cell disease.
That's true. I meant more "living in a completely sterile environment."Geebs wrote:Sitting around inside all day makes you more, not less, likely to pick up infections. Ask someone with TB
I'm not arguing that cancer, for example, is there for some evolutionary purpose, but you have to remember that anything which tends to become symptomatic after childbearing years has very little effect on natural selection. Like Huntington's Chorea, for example - people only become symptomatic with that when they've already had kids (around the early 40s), and it's too late to do anything about it - hence it doesn't get bred out.Fender wrote:Surely you can't say that every genetic condition we have as a species is present for some sort of evolutionary purpose? Nature does fuck up every once in a while.
tnf wrote:Nothing more depressing than seeing the fact that almost 50% or more of your students come in to the class completely opposed to the idea - and completely closed to listening to the MOUNTAINS of evidence supporting it.
I guess it took awhile for the Copernican revolution to really take hold...so hopefully one day, one gloriously fine day, I will be able to use the "E" word without invoking the rage of parents and students alike...
I made a big distinction between "grown up science" vs. "intelligent design" (which I called the strategy of intelletual surrender) and "creation science" (which I called an oxymoron).
But I did make a dent, I think...most of the kids had no idea that the Church had such a history of stifling intellectual progress...some were a bit surprised to hear the stories of Galileo and Copernicus - things like believing Galileo's telescope was possessed by the devil because it showed craters on the moon.
Anyway, the little red light on my office phone will probably be flashing tomorrow morning when I come in from angry parents. Oh well.
As Richard Dawkins pointed out, saying that "half an eye is useless" is grossly offensive to myopes"Cool Blue wrote:The theory of evolution is weak and cannot explain some very fundamental problems with itself. sys0p made a prime example, where's all the half evolved species? Where's the fossils of these half evolved species?
I dunno, ask an achondroplastic dwarf.Cool Blue wrote:Not a single species has spontaneously mutated since we began documenting. Why?
Nah, he was making all that shit up. He certainly didn't have enough evidence to explain the cosmos. We don't TODAY.Relating this to copernicus is a huge insult btw. Copernicus could PROVE without doubt his findings, not merely speculate. THAT is science. I'm sorry if I sound annoyed but I am. You're supposed to be SCIENCE teacher.
well, if that's not a sound academic condemnation i don't know what is.Cool Blue wrote:I have friend to studied geology at Uni for a few years, he dropped out because he couldnt' respect it as a science.
I didn't mean to come off like that - if that's what you thought I meant. I just know a lot of people think we're somehow above nature because of their self-righteous beleifs. The book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn helped opened my eyesR00k wrote:Am I just considered an uneducated wanna-be here or something?
Seriously.
I'm not sure what you're looking for here? We have fossils of "half-evolved" species. Ever seen prehistoric birds? Keep in mind that fossils are rare and will only occur when the environment is right, so we aren't going to get many fossils of every animal that exists. Just because it's not in the fossil record doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Cool Blue wrote: The theory of evolution is weak and cannot explain some very fundamental problems with itself. sys0p made a prime example, where's all the half evolved species? Where's the fossils of these half evolved species?
First of all, there is no scientific distinction of "race". If you meant "species," then I fail to see your argument. Pleanty of small species populations exist. If unless a mutation is deleterious, it will stay in the population at some frequency (check out hardy-weinberg). Functional mutations will slowly become more frequent.We already know it's impossible for a race to exist if the gene pool is too small, therefore for evolution work each succesfull 'mutation' would have had to create a large enough gene pool to sustain itself. Where's the evidence of that?
Next, the time line doesn't make sense, in fact it's totally off. If species mutatated at the rate required by evolution, we would have seen some fucked up changes in our (relatively) short human existance to support this. But we haven't. Not a single species has spontaneously mutated since we began documenting. Why?
Huh? Spontaneous mutations happen all the time. Dog breeds, plant mutations, etc. The penicillin-resistent bacteria may also have something to say about this.Hmm...apparently molecular evidence is not considered enough evidence these days either?Add to that the fact that they date all their fossil records on inexactly dated bedrock and you've got a theory. A best guess. FAR from what science is supposed to accept as fact.
no one cares about that crap, it's the THEORY that counts. dude if you fucking look at DNA and learn how it works you'd turn around in a flinch. it's so fucking obvious that the evolution theory is right.Cool Blue wrote: Fuck the church. The theory of evolution is based off of inexact sciences such as geology. Mountain of proof my ass.
They deduce that a layer of bedrock is XX years old therefore fossils in it are XXX years old, but can't verify the age of the bedrock because they use other layers dated off of other layers dated off of other layers to date that. It's all guess work. They like to think it's exact but it's not. Hell, even carbon dating is weak. They get a result they dont' like and they come up with a million reasons to toss the results and stick with the results they wanted.
I have friend to studied geology at Uni for a few years, he dropped out because he couldnt' respect it as a science.
The theory of evolution is weak and cannot explain some very fundamental problems with itself. sys0p made a prime example, where's all the half evolved species? Where's the fossils of these half evolved species?
We already know it's impossible for a race to exist if the gene pool is too small, therefore for evolution work each succesfull 'mutation' would have had to create a large enough gene pool to sustain itself. Where's the evidence of that?
Next, the time line doesn't make sense, in fact it's totally off. If species mutatated at the rate required by evolution, we would have seen some fucked up changes in our (relatively) short human existance to support this. But we haven't. Not a single species has spontaneously mutated since we began documenting. Why?
Add to that the fact that they date all their fossil records on inexactly dated bedrock and you've got a theory. A best guess. FAR from what science is supposed to accept as fact.
Then you can't use it to support YOUR arguement. Goes both ways.werldhed wrote:I'm not sure what you're looking for here? We have fossils of "half-evolved" species. Ever seen prehistoric birds? Keep in mind that fossils are rare and will only occur when the environment is right, so we aren't going to get many fossils of every animal that exists. Just because it's not in the fossil record doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Cool Blue wrote: The theory of evolution is weak and cannot explain some very fundamental problems with itself. sys0p made a prime example, where's all the half evolved species? Where's the fossils of these half evolved species?
Yes, I meant species.First of all, there is no scientific distinction of "race". If you meant "species," then I fail to see your argument. Pleanty of small species populations exist. If unless a mutation is deleterious, it will stay in the population at some frequency (check out hardy-weinberg). Functional mutations will slowly become more frequent.We already know it's impossible for a race to exist if the gene pool is too small, therefore for evolution work each succesfull 'mutation' would have had to create a large enough gene pool to sustain itself. Where's the evidence of that?
Okay, so where's the new race of uber pitbulls? Where's this new race of plants? Most mutations are negative, not positive and die off instead of propagate.Next, the time line doesn't make sense, in fact it's totally off. If species mutatated at the rate required by evolution, we would have seen some fucked up changes in our (relatively) short human existance to support this. But we haven't. Not a single species has spontaneously mutated since we began documenting. Why?
What molecular evidence? I have yet to hear of an exact, and I mean EXACT form of decifering an objects age.Hmm...apparently molecular evidence is not considered enough evidence these days either?Add to that the fact that they date all their fossil records on inexactly dated bedrock and you've got a theory. A best guess. FAR from what science is supposed to accept as fact.
:lol: DNA proves evolution as much as the fact that we're all made of the same base elements.LeonardoP wrote:no one cares about that crap, it's the THEORY that counts. dude if you fucking look at DNA and learn how it works you'd turn around in a flinch. it's so fucking obvious that the evolution theory is right.Cool Blue wrote: Fuck the church. The theory of evolution is based off of inexact sciences such as geology. Mountain of proof my ass.
They deduce that a layer of bedrock is XX years old therefore fossils in it are XXX years old, but can't verify the age of the bedrock because they use other layers dated off of other layers dated off of other layers to date that. It's all guess work. They like to think it's exact but it's not. Hell, even carbon dating is weak. They get a result they dont' like and they come up with a million reasons to toss the results and stick with the results they wanted.
I have friend to studied geology at Uni for a few years, he dropped out because he couldnt' respect it as a science.
The theory of evolution is weak and cannot explain some very fundamental problems with itself. sys0p made a prime example, where's all the half evolved species? Where's the fossils of these half evolved species?
We already know it's impossible for a race to exist if the gene pool is too small, therefore for evolution work each succesfull 'mutation' would have had to create a large enough gene pool to sustain itself. Where's the evidence of that?
Next, the time line doesn't make sense, in fact it's totally off. If species mutatated at the rate required by evolution, we would have seen some fucked up changes in our (relatively) short human existance to support this. But we haven't. Not a single species has spontaneously mutated since we began documenting. Why?
Add to that the fact that they date all their fossil records on inexactly dated bedrock and you've got a theory. A best guess. FAR from what science is supposed to accept as fact.
+what geebs said
would be lame to say i'm not sure just because we dont know EVERYTHING. i think we can be pretty damn sure of evolution.Cool Blue wrote: :lol: DNA proves evolution as much as the fact that we're all made of the same base elements.
We can't exlain why particles exist they way they do and until we can, I feel we shouldn't be claiming absolute knowledge of ANYTHING.
Hmmm, that might be a bit of a misnomer eh...if we are using our brains to manipulate X Y Z in the evolutionary matrix, surely this is not 'outside' of nature (i.e., non-natural).Massive Quasars wrote:It means human progress is interfering with our natural evolution. We're nearing the brink at which we can direct our own evolution.Hannibal wrote:Yeah, I like ya Fender, but "Living longer than they should"...what does that even mean?
No, not you at all man.Shmee wrote:I didn't mean to come off like that - if that's what you thought I meant. I just know a lot of people think we're somehow above nature because of their self-righteous beleifs. The book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn helped opened my eyesR00k wrote:Am I just considered an uneducated wanna-be here or something?
Seriously.
Geebs wrote:No, seriously. Saying one gene is "weaker" than another is just plain wrong. It's an argument you usually get with people who also don't know the difference between dominant and recessive, and eugenic principles were pretty generally popular in the first half of the century. Of course people tend to try to forget that Marie Stopes, the famous feminist and sex educator (pretty sure she was Jewish, can't remember) had some views which were pretty compatible with eugenics (like neutering the poor so they wouldn't breed).Fender wrote:predictableGeebs wrote:Thank you for that insight, Dr. Mengele
The usual guff about sickle cell trait, however, blows all of that eugenics or "strong gene/weak gene" crap clean out of the water.
This argument has been made before, and you're right. Human evolution, human progress, and a likely human directed evolution, could all be considered natural.Hannibal wrote:Hmmm, that might be a bit of a misnomer eh...if we are using our brains to manipulate X Y Z in the evolutionary matrix, surely this is not 'outside' of nature (i.e., non-natural).Massive Quasars wrote:It means human progress is interfering with our natural evolution. We're nearing the brink at which we can direct our own evolution.Hannibal wrote:Yeah, I like ya Fender, but "Living longer than they should"...what does that even mean?
Sure you can. If fossils show intermediate species, then that's evidence. If you say, "well why aren't there fossils for every creature that ever existed," I'm going to say that we'll only have fossils for animals that died under the right circumstances.Cool Blue wrote:Then you can't use it to support YOUR arguement. Goes both ways.werldhed wrote:I'm not sure what you're looking for here? We have fossils of "half-evolved" species. Ever seen prehistoric birds? Keep in mind that fossils are rare and will only occur when the environment is right, so we aren't going to get many fossils of every animal that exists. Just because it's not in the fossil record doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Okay, if you're talking about extreme differences, then you just stated that evolution would take a long time to observe. THAT'S why we haven't seen such a thing occur in our lifetimes.Yes, I meant species.First of all, there is no scientific distinction of "race". If you meant "species," then I fail to see your argument. Pleanty of small species populations exist. If unless a mutation is deleterious, it will stay in the population at some frequency (check out hardy-weinberg). Functional mutations will slowly become more frequent.
I read a paper, for the life of me I wish I could remember the author so I could reference it, who modeled the timeline in relation to how long it would take for species to evolve from one to another and it would take FAR, FAR longer than it has taken to work that way. Don't forget, this isn't just about growing a new finger or changing color, we're talking about severe changes (immergence of new species).
The fact that pitbulls EXIST is evidence of evolution. Their mutations were selected for, and now they've evolved. And you're right negative mutations dying off -- that's natural selection at work again. And as Geebs said, if a negative mutation can be propagated (i.e. Huntington's), then it will be passed on. That's why it still exists.Okay, so where's the new race of uber pitbulls? Where's this new race of plants? Most mutations are negative, not positive and die off instead of propagate.
My reply here was to your assertation that it is far from what science calls fact. I thought you were referring to evolutionary evidence in general, not dating methods. I misread the post.What molecular evidence? I have yet to hear of an exact, and I mean EXACT form of decifering an objects age.Hmm...apparently molecular evidence is not considered enough evidence these days either?Add to that the fact that they date all their fossil records on inexactly dated bedrock and you've got a theory. A best guess. FAR from what science is supposed to accept as fact.
In general, Darwinism, in the strict sense is not an accepted theory.Personally I feel it moot to debate this subject, as it's an unsubstantiated theory with circumstancial evidence for and against. Might as well argue about God. You can't prove Darwin was right, because the evidence doesn't exist. I can't prove he's wrong because the evidence doesn't exist. To me, that's the sole reason it should be left as a theory and not a fact.
FFS, they won't accept from of Hawkings theories and they're TEN TIMES more factually based than Darwinism. To stop and believe Darwin was right is to become complacent and lazy in science. This question has not been answered sufficiently.
That's extremely subjective, as I've already pointed out in this thread. You yourself, according to the THEORY of evolution (as it's always referred to in reputable scientific, and disreputable ecclesiastical, circles) are a net result of all the "positive" mutations, and hence you're living, breathing proof.Cool Blue wrote:Okay, so where's the new race of uber pitbulls? Where's this new race of plants? Most mutations are negative, not positive and die off instead of propagate.
It's not possible, because of quantumWhat molecular evidence? I have yet to hear of an exact, and I mean EXACT form of decifering an objects age.
All you have to do to define separate species is to stick two of them in a room and see if they produce viable offspring. It doesn't mean that one of them has to have three heads and be uber-l334Some gibberish about "race" and "species"
Frankly, a load of bollocks. The theory may need refining, but this certainly doesn't disprove anything, since due to your point about carbon dating, all of the numbers are made up.garbage about how long it takes to form a species
You have the absolute worst grasp on geological dating I have ever seen.Cool Blue wrote:tnf wrote:Nothing more depressing than seeing the fact that almost 50% or more of your students come in to the class completely opposed to the idea - and completely closed to listening to the MOUNTAINS of evidence supporting it.
I guess it took awhile for the Copernican revolution to really take hold...so hopefully one day, one gloriously fine day, I will be able to use the "E" word without invoking the rage of parents and students alike...
I made a big distinction between "grown up science" vs. "intelligent design" (which I called the strategy of intelletual surrender) and "creation science" (which I called an oxymoron).
But I did make a dent, I think...most of the kids had no idea that the Church had such a history of stifling intellectual progress...some were a bit surprised to hear the stories of Galileo and Copernicus - things like believing Galileo's telescope was possessed by the devil because it showed craters on the moon.
Anyway, the little red light on my office phone will probably be flashing tomorrow morning when I come in from angry parents. Oh well.
Fuck the church. The theory of evolution is based off of inexact sciences such as geology. Mountain of proof my ass.
They deduce that a layer of bedrock is XX years old therefore fossils in it are XXX years old, but can't verify the age of the bedrock because they use other layers dated off of other layers dated off of other layers to date that. It's all guess work. They like to think it's exact but it's not. Hell, even carbon dating is weak. They get a result they dont' like and they come up with a million reasons to toss the results and stick with the results they wanted.
I have friend to studied geology at Uni for a few years, he dropped out because he couldnt' respect it as a science.
The theory of evolution is weak and cannot explain some very fundamental problems with itself. sys0p made a prime example, where's all the half evolved species? Where's the fossils of these half evolved species?
We already know it's impossible for a race to exist if the gene pool is too small, therefore for evolution work each succesfull 'mutation' would have had to create a large enough gene pool to sustain itself. Where's the evidence of that?
Next, the time line doesn't make sense, in fact it's totally off. If species mutatated at the rate required by evolution, we would have seen some fucked up changes in our (relatively) short human existance to support this. But we haven't. Not a single species has spontaneously mutated since we began documenting. Why?
Add to that the fact that they date all their fossil records on inexactly dated bedrock and you've got a theory. A best guess. FAR from what science is supposed to accept as fact.
Relating this to copernicus is a huge insult btw. Copernicus could PROVE without doubt his findings, not merely speculate. THAT is science. I'm sorry if I sound annoyed but I am. You're supposed to be SCIENCE teacher.
As compared to ToxicBug, who has a terrible grasp on human dating.Jackal wrote:You have the absolute worst grasp on geological dating I have ever seen.
