Science-Religion. Which wins?

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Your usage of the word “allele” demonstrates that you probably don’t understand what an allele is. You might want to investigate the issue more so you can use the proper terminologies so I can understand better what you are trying to assert. I mean, it’s just totally garbled: “an allele being realized?” “an allele being split into sub-populations?”.

</p>

<p>I’m sorry, I’m not very good at keeping terms straight… By allele I mean “one of a possible set of elements that a particular gene can be”. For example, the eye color alleles of blue and brown.</p>

<p>By “an allele being realized”, I mean “a formerly rare allele becoming common in a population”. For example, if humans decided that only blue eyes were attractive, then the blue allele would have a reproductive advantage and would become that standard over time.</p>

<p>By “split into subpopulations”, I mean “a population is split into more than one group, each with a different ratio of different alleles than the parent population”. For example, a the population of England includes many different hair colors. If a handful of red-haired sailors were shipwrecked on an island, a new population which was all red haired would be formed.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Well of course. All the ones with harmful mutations don’t survive to successfully reproduce. Either that, or they reproduce LESS than their healthy counterparts, skewing the population over time. This is a highly important aspect of Darwinian evolution.

</p>

<p>The problem is that when you realize how improbable the mutations are, and how minimal the benefits would be even if they did occur, it becomes absurd.</p>

<p>Take bird feathers, for example: The probability of a scale changing directly to a feather is so small as to be discounted. Yet I find it hard to imagine how partial feathers would make a significant difference in a creature’s survival ability. Maybe scales which were “loose-woven” would provide slightly better insulation, but the effects would be dwarfed by numerous random factors. Even if a new trait did arise by mutation (and this has never been observed to happen), it would be just as likely to die out as to be perpetuated.</p>

<p>Each thing like this multiplies the improbabilities still further, until they require ever more vast numbers of generations. If nothing remotely close to the production of a new trait has been observed within the 1000s of generations we have observed, and if even if a trait were produced it would still have be a tossup as to its surviving, the improbabilities become astronomical.</p>

<p>And even were these improbabilities accepted and we decide that evolution could reasonably have happened, there is still little evidence that it did happen.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

HIV is a superbug, though granted, it isn’t alive. Viruses go through the evolutionary process as well you know.

</p>

<p>In the sense that more fit virues survive better? Yes. In the sense that viruses develop new abilities through random mutation? Not as far as we have observed.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Semantics. They don’t copy their gene code properly, which means they mutate, though at a much faster rate and occurence than everything else. Because there are millions of them, the population becomes gradually more resistant (as only the resistant mutations can reproduce). The new ability is of course the ability to survive anti-viral environment (analogous to longer fur to survive cold weather, taller necks to eat more leaves, etc).

</p>

<p>The analogy is not with longer necks or thinker fur. The mutated virus has no abilities that the old one lacked, it merely “looks” different. The correct analogy would be a different fingerprint. This random variation never produces anything “higher” or “more complex”.</p>

[CelaPlusAimaple]

<p>lol why didn’t I post 9 times to get #1000?</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Frankly, natural selection is one of the largest components of evolution.

</p>

<p>Frankly, you can apply natural selection to a population forever and no evolution will occur unless a mechanism for producing new traits exists. All observed evidence supports the idea that no traits for which genes do not already exist will ever be produced by natural selection.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

So I suppose you or another source have calculated the probability. May I have a link, your calculations, or an acknowledgment that you are just guessing?

</p>

<p>It’s simple logic. Many traits which creatures possess would be of minimal or no value were they only partially formed. A mammal with a little bit of fuzz on its way to becoming fur would have almost no advantage over a naked mammal. It would survive maybe a couple minutes longer in the cold, and would get slightly less sunburn. These kind of advantages would hardly ever lead to a creature surviving when it would otherwise have died. It would take numerous such “saves” for a trait to become universal.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

What kind of twisted tree have you drawn? Can I see a picture or source? Here is a rather long list of discovered fossils:
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>

<p>Though I’m not sure you’ll care, seeing as you believe the Earth to be a mere 6000 years old.

</p>

<p>I don’t have time to research the names again right now, but I have researched the species listed on wikipedia and if you actually examine each one closely, instead of just looking at the list, you will find that almost none of them can be arranged in an actual line of descent, and that these are the ones we have the least information about.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>Is there a reason why you ignored my posts on the cleanerfish problem and the inconsistencies in Naturalism?</p>

[tipa891]

<p>^^^What about if it was in a case of who was the preferred mate. Maybe that little bit of fuzz was a consequence of a higher concentration of a certain hormone in the males of the species, that promoted muscle growth or something like that, which did increase the chances of survival ,or assisted in establishing superiority in a hierarchy. If this was the case, females would be attracted to them, for personal protection and the potential success of their offspring. Even if the the advantages were minimal, in a harsh environment, every little bit counts. It’s like picking up a penny on the side walk. It’s doesn’t have much worth, but once you’ve got a lot of them (or in the evolution stand point, after there have been enough generations) a large quantifiable sum begins to form. Animals don’t only act based on their own survival. Mating is an important thing too, and what traits are passed on means better chances for your genetic line, so they can be rather choosy with who they mate.</p>

<p>The same thing is shown in humans. Why are big muscles attractive in men, because it used to mean he would be better suited to protect you and that your children would be stronger and possibly survive better.</p>

<p>Lastly, I’d like to say that I apologize if none of this makes sense, because I don’t actually know that much about evolution, and I stated this thought on a whim, so it could be very much invalid.</p>

[thequestionmark]

<p>

I’m sorry, I’m not very good at keeping terms straight… By allele I mean “one of a possible set of elements that a particular gene can be”. For example, the eye color alleles of blue and brown

And not good at keeping your science straight. I mean, you’re still using the word incorrectly, and you’re continuing to demonstrate that you have no education in biology whatsoever. If I were to guess, I think you mean to use “phenotype”, and if I were to keep trying my luck, I’d suppose you’re asking how new phenotypes are formed.</p>

<p>Once you understand that a phenotype is defined by a certain sequence of nucleotide bases and that the reproduction of said bases is imperfect, it becomes easy to understand how phenotypes can be changed into something totally new from what they where before. </p>

<p>

Frankly, you can apply natural selection to a population forever and no evolution will occur unless a mechanism for producing new traits exists.All observed evidence supports the idea that no traits for which genes do not already exist will ever be produced by natural selection.

Correct. Natural selection only accounts for the selection of favorable traits over time. As such, evolution is a two-fold process. The first is spontaneous mutation, which the vast majority of the time produces no new traits. However, in the rare occasion that a favorable trait is produced and capable of proliferation through reproduction, natural selection takes over. </p>

<p>New traits can be produced by all types of mutations (these do not neccessarily require ADDITIONAL DNA, but could also involve copying, switching, deleting). That said, there are several ways that additional chromosomes and DNA can be added into the genome. For further clarification of see previous posts. </p>

<p>

It would survive maybe a couple minutes longer in the cold, and would get slightly less sunburn. These kind of advantages would hardly ever lead to a creature surviving when it would otherwise have died. It would take numerous such “saves” for a trait to become universal.

Just another misconception you have. Evolution isn’t about survival, it’s about maximum reproduction. Further, all small differences are magnified over large populations and long period of times. Even if the chance is only 1/1,000,000 per year, the 2,500,000,000 years of life’s existence makes these improbable occurrences probable. </p>

<p>

Before you accuse me of moving the goalposts, you should look at what I have been saying since long before you entered this argument.

The consideration (even if you do not fully believe) in 6,000 year old earth is not a neutral situation. The verified peer-reviewed facts are overwhelmingly against it. You have to make a particular effort to reject mainstream science to arrive at the situation you are in. To me it’s the equivalent of saying, and excuse the cliche analogy:</p>

<p>You: The earth could be flat or round. It looks flat when I walk on it and the church says so.
Me: But evidence is overwhelming!
You: <a href=“http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm[/url]”>http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm&lt;/a&gt;
Me: That website is full of bogus because of X,Y,Z
You: All evidence is bogus.</p>

<p>In this scenario, maintaining neutrality is hardly the rational thing to do. </p>

<p>

The mutated virus has no abilities that the old one lacked, it merely “looks” different.

That’s a subjective, unscientific way to define what a new genetic trait is. So I suppose the virus would have quote “look” the same, but somehow not “do” the same? You’re making little sense. </p>

<p>

Yes. In the sense that viruses develop new abilities through random mutation?

Well sure. The fact that HIV has only existed for the past few decades seems to suggest that mutations are more prevalent than expected. I mean, HIV is completely different from most retroviruses we have seen before. </p>

<p>

The problem is that when you realize how improbable the mutations are, and how minimal the benefits would be even if they did occur, it becomes absurd.

Mutations happen all the time. It’s the beneficial ones that are rare. All rare occurrences WILL occur over long period of time! Of course, you dug a hole in this argument. You reject the old-age earth (because of your beliefs, and not scientific evidence), and then you use that fallacious rejection to reject evolution.</p>

<p>@tipa891
Preferred mating accelerates natural selection. It is a valid mechanism but is not essential in evolution’s progress.
<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_preference[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_preference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[pierre0913]

<p>Evolution and religion are compatible. I don’t know why people fail to see that. We in fact have no idea through the Bible how God specifically created the earth, just the fact that he did. How do you know that God didn’t use evolution as a means to human creation?</p>

[SaintSaens]

<p>Evolution and religion are compatible. Evolution simply isn’t compatible with most creation stories.</p>

[thequestionmark]

<p>

Evolution and religion are compatible. Evolution simply isn’t compatible with most creation stories.

</p>

<p>

Evolution and religion are compatible.

Quoted for truth.</p>

[Adenine]

<p>Show me a creation myth that accords with the objective evidence that we have (there isn’t one genesis included). At least Catholicism is flexible enough to know when its wrong (the earth isn’t flat, evolution exists, etc).mifune posted something on the contradictions between genesis and science (REGARDLESS of how much you cheery pick to stand as an allegory).</p>

[Custardapple101]

<p>Science is the most influential to society but you have to know that god is also a belivable. So they are tied because they influence what we do.</p>

[Adenine]

<p>If anyone wants clarification on ad hominem against creationists please see the link to the Family Guy episode and the comments below it.</p>

<p>[Are</a> Creationists ■■■■■■■■? No… The Frame Problem](<a href=“http://theframeproblem.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2008/01/23/are-creationists-■■■■■■■■-no/]Are”>Are Creationists ■■■■■■■■? No… | The Frame Problem)</p>

[HarveyLewis]

<p>

lol why didn’t I post 9 times to get #1000?

Another miss for CPA. Well, Mosby deserves it I guess - he has nearly a quarter of the posts on this thread.</p>

[alam1]

<p>“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church.” [Thomas Paine]</p>

<p>“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.” [Thomas Paine]</p>

<p>The man was so far ahead of his time. I personally love most of his quotes. He did, however, describe himself as a deist, which shows that one can entertain the possibility of the existance of a God without the need of religion.</p>

[fastbreak]

<p>Interesting lecture notes on the religion debate from MIT:
<a href=“http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/linguistics-and-philosophy/24-00-problems-of-philosophy-fall-2005/lecture-notes/evilbcj05.pdf[/url]”>http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/linguistics-and-philosophy/24-00-problems-of-philosophy-fall-2005/lecture-notes/evilbcj05.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I agree with mifune.</p>