|
|
Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism
[Re: NITRO777]
#147405
08/14/07 17:02
08/14/07 17:02
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 791 NRW, Deutschland
inFusion
User
|
User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 791
NRW, Deutschland
|
Quote:
Essentially genetic entropy would falsify the entire ToE.
Sorry, but this is just not true. As you already said, ToE works via genetic mutation combined with natural selection. So mutations that are less suitable for the environment the creature lives in will just die out and have no chance of reproducing (and thus their "bad" genes will not be added to the gene pool). So the only beeings that survive are the ones that already existed or have mutated to fit the environment even slightly better than their parents. In the latter case the better adaption to the environment will have the effect that the new creatures have an advantage over the older creatures and thus give them a better chance of reproduction. In this way the new form of creature slowly outnumbers the old creatures wich eventually die out. This is called Evolution. And I don't see how your argument would disprove it.
You have to be aware that this is a very slow process wich takes millions of years. A timeperiod no human can really imagine. I think thats the main reason many people quickly dismiss the ToE.
Quote:
I will start with just one arguement, there is no need to complicate things too much by giving 'some' of these arguments.
I do think it needs more than the rather unsolid argument you gave, so next time you might want to indeed post "some" of these arguments.
And maybe you should leave your high throne and stop believing that everyone else here is stupid and doesn't understand scientific theories like Einsteins Relativity or Darwins Evolution. 
|
|
|
Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism
[Re: inFusion]
#147406
08/14/07 17:23
08/14/07 17:23
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010 analysis paralysis
NITRO777
OP
Expert
|
OP
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
And maybe you should leave your high throne and stop believing that everyone else here is stupid
I dont believe anyone is stupid, thats not a part of my belief system.
Quote:
So mutations that are less suitable for the environment the creature lives in will just die out and have no chance of reproducing (and thus their "bad" genes will not be added to the gene pool).
What do you suppose "less suitable" mutations might be? They dont all get selected out, only the severely mutated organisms get selected out...and besides, genes dont get selected or de-selected, organisms do, there is a big difference.
There are several types of mutation, and we all have mutated 100's of times with each new generation. Point mutations, insertions, deletions, coversions,... we are all mutants. What do you suppose the effect of all of these mutation will be on the genome of living creatures? Certainly not evolution. More like de-evolution or... degeneration.
And selection will not come to the rescue and sort out the "bad genes" from the rest because selection works on the level of the organism NOT the nucleotide level. Selection will only work in a relatively short series of generations, and only among very bad mutations. The subtle accumulation of so-called "neutral mutations" has always, and will always degenerate the genome of living creatures.
|
|
|
Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism
[Re: NITRO777]
#147407
08/14/07 17:41
08/14/07 17:41
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377 USofA
fastlane69
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Quote:
What do you suppose the effect of all of these mutation will be on the genome of living creatures? Certainly not evolution. More like de-evolution or... degeneration.
And yet mankind is stronger, taller, stronger, smarter, and lives longer than we were 1000 and 2000 years ago.
De-evolution would have us become shorter, weaker, more dumb, and less lived in the last 2000 years.
That to me points toward mankind evolving to something better than it was before through genetic and social mutations.
So your hypothesis is nullified in light of evidence past and present.
|
|
|
Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism
[Re: fastlane69]
#147408
08/14/07 18:42
08/14/07 18:42
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121 Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
Machinery_Frank
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
|
De-Evolution is not existing. Someone had to pick the bad ones to survive. How should that happen? Maybe a wrong social policy of a government could have a small influence? But I am sure that evolution can be slowed down or even stopped. We don't have a selection anymore. A very smart or very strong human will not have a big advantage over weak, ill or dumb people at the moment. So our evolution could have come to an end. The greatest speed of evolution happens in situations where a species needs every small advantage to survive. The weak individuums extinct and the strong survive. All that will not happen with humans anymore. So we will not become any kind of alien race in the future 
Models, Textures and Games from Dexsoft
|
|
|
Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism
[Re: fastlane69]
#147411
08/14/07 21:49
08/14/07 21:49
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010 analysis paralysis
NITRO777
OP
Expert
|
OP
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
And yet mankind is stronger, taller, stronger, smarter, and lives longer than we were 1000 and 2000 years ago.
This would be a personal idea of yours, but it in no way correlates to any scientific facts.
Genetics is certainly a factor in determining the heights of individuals, but when determining the average height of populations it is irrelevant compared to other factors such as nutrition and health. In which case all we are observing is the adaptation of the human being within an existing genetic pool.
Quote:
Genetics is a major factor in determining the height of individuals, though it is far less influential in regard to populations. Average height is increasingly used as a measure of the health and wellness (standard of living and quality of life) of populations. Attributed as a significant reason for the trend of increasing height in parts of Europe is the egalitarian populations where proper medical care and adequate nutrition are relatively equally distributed. Changes in diet (nutrition) and a general rise in quality of health care and standard of living are the cited factors in the Asian populations. Average height in the United States has remained essentially stagnant since the 1950s. Severe malnutrition is known to cause stunted growth in North Korean, portions of African, certain historical European, and other populations. Diet (in addition to needed nutrients; such things as junk food and attendant health problems such as obesity), exercise, fitness, pollution exposure, sleep patterns, climate (see Allen's rule and Bergmann's Rule for example), and even happiness (psychological well-being) are other factors that can affect growth and final height.
Height differences as well as strength differences have been observed in populations during time periods of 10 to 20 years, this short period is ample time to observe a positive change caused by mutation(which would be true laboratory observation), in that time period mutations would be recorded, the whole process of evolution would be documented and the case would be closed against creationism, however that never happened.
As for your other attributes, that we are "smarter" and "live longer", once again there is evidence about individuals inheriting intelligence or long life from parents, but the fundamental reasons for people living longer these days is because of technology. It would be foolish to assume that we are living longer without considering the huge impact medical technology has had on us as the human species.
Intelligence also cannot be attributed to mutation/selection because there is no evidence for an evolved human mind at all. The rennaissance certainly saw an emergence of human thought and began the snowball effect of the advanced technology we have today, but that only occured because people had found some basic technology to give them time to think about something else other than how to feed themselves. The life span of humanity jumped considerably after the renaissance, I think the average lifespan of people during the dark ages was in the mid-30's...
Quote:
So your hypothesis is nullified
This is NOT my hypothesis, this is the real work of major geneticists and is generally accepted.
All of these mutations exist in our gene pool, and they compound with every generation, this is a scientific fact based upon the scientific method, experimentation and observations.
Just incase people think Im just making this up I dont mind providing some of my background material.
Kondrashov estimates nuclear substitutions at 100 per person.
**normal estimates of nucleotide substitutions would not take into account microsatellite mutation rates.
deletions and insertions would add another 4%(4 per 100)..
I have numerous references if anyone is actually interested I can certainly provide them...high mutation rates are a well known fact among population geneticists and genetcists. There is publication after publication describing the findings, but I think most people would be bored at such a presentation. However if there are any specific questions here, or any specific challenges to any of the few points I have actually made here, I will be glad to show why I believe what I believe.
One of the major ironies to this particular conversation which I have found is that if people here are evolutionists, and they accept the relatively short time span between chimp and man(compared to the genetic differences), wouldnt you estimate that there would need to be thousands of such mutations to occur per generation of Chimp?
So now that I have shared some of my knowledge and evidences to the group here, maybe someone can tell me how many mutations would need to occur to create a feasible evolutionary transformation between a chimp and a human being.
Of course I am aware of the different number of nucleotides in each DNA, but in order to arrive at those changes,...how many mutations are needed?
Quote:
And still you impose that most of the people here dont understand scientific theories.
Right, but because someone doesnt understand something it doesnt make them stupid..it might make them ignorant. But yes I stick to my belief that most people here, and most people everywhere dont really care to know much more than high-school level science.
Quote:
Of course the selection happens on level of the organism
Quote:
for mutations that are weaker than the original would be sorted out imediately by natural selection.
Thats where you have missed it. In the first quote you have agreed that organisms can be selected out, in the second quote you have postulated that "mutations" can be selected out, mutations cannot be selected out because natural selection works at the organism level, NOT the nucleotide(mutation) level. The fundamental principles of biology(which, BTW is even taught to high school students) is that all of life falls within an organizational structure. Nucleotides are much lower in this structure...selection would not be able to analyze which mutation was fittest...selection can only look at the results of whole individual organisms.
Quote:
Still waiting for the second of your "huge number" of counterarguments
Well I have volumes of them, but unfortunately I dont have volumes of time so we all have to wait for replys sometimes.
Quote:
Must be something with NASA engineers. At least he did not produce testable theories like that other NASA whacko : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_C._Whisenant
Its against the Bible to set a date when Jesus Himself said: Quote:
Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.
I dont understand why some Christians persist..I guess because technically Jesus allowed for someone possibly knowing the year? 
What would he have done if he thought Christ would come in the year 2000? 
|
|
|
Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism
[Re: NITRO777]
#147412
08/14/07 23:35
08/14/07 23:35
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236 San Diego, CA
Marco_Grubert
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
|
Quote:
Its against the Bible to set a date when Jesus Himself said: Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only. I dont understand why some Christians persist..I guess because technically Jesus allowed for someone possibly knowing the year? 
Well you'd think Jesus knew his return date better than Whisenant, but not so. Let me add the lines leading up to your quote :
Matthew 24:33-34 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Quote:
Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Guess these guys are in a stasis field right now..
|
|
|
Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism
[Re: NITRO777]
#147413
08/15/07 00:51
08/15/07 00:51
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377 USofA
fastlane69
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Quote:
Intelligence also cannot be attributed to mutation/selection because there is no evidence for an evolved human mind at all.
Fair enough; I'll grant you that it's impossible to decouple nutrition and technology from genetics in this regime.
However, can you present evidence of a de-evolved brain? Or a de-evolved anything? If as you say the major reason for the advance in the last few hundred years is due to technology (not going to argue that), then where is the evidence of a de-evolution? That's my fundamental point: that in order to de-evolve, we have to be less than we were before and less likely to survive in our environment and I see humans as continually adapting to their new environment and doing pretty good for our selves.
Basically Nitro I believe we are both out of our ken in this area, neither one of us being scientists in this area, relying on wikipedia for our arguements, and thus our opinions basically amount to time-sucking verbal masturbation. 
Quote:
One of the major ironies to this particular conversation which I have found is that if people here are evolutionists, and they accept the relatively short time span between chimp and man(compared to the genetic differences), wouldnt you estimate that there would need to be thousands of such mutations to occur per generation of Chimp?
So now that I have shared some of my knowledge and evidences to the group here, maybe someone can tell me how many mutations would need to occur to create a feasible evolutionary transformation between a chimp and a human being.
Evolutionist don't belive man came from chimp... I don't think even Darwin argued that... that is pure Scopes Trial propaganda. Chimps and humans are from different evolutionary lines and thus no amount of mutation AFAIK could make either one jump the branch they are on.
Besides, it is my understanding that like psychology has moved past freud (and thus no one actually practices his ideas) so too has evolution moved past Darwin (and thus no one actually uses his ideas). It's called neo-darwinism or modern synthesis (not sure if they are the same). At the height of the Intelligent Design fracas, I had a conversation with a professor told me that the common ideas being touted about evolution (including the ones that you and I are using) are actually wrong in the modern context in the way that believing that Freud has relevance to modern psychology is wrong. He told me this new modern synthesis combined what we have learned about genetics in the past century to create a more resonable evolutionary theory.
Here are some sites on what modern evolution belives:
http://www.panspermia.org/neodarw.htm http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
There is a ton of stuff on the questions you asked Nitro as to how can a species survive with mutations or how many mutations are needed.
|
|
|
Re: Former NASA engineer touts Creationism
[Re: Marco_Grubert]
#147414
08/15/07 01:13
08/15/07 01:13
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010 analysis paralysis
NITRO777
OP
Expert
|
OP
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guess these guys are in a stasis field right now..
Of course this is basic Biblical theology. The Son of Man coming in His kingdom would be when He ressurected, so many would not taste death before that occured. Remember the oft repaeated phrase by Jesus:
"The Kingdom of God is at hand" basically the Kingdom was something Jesus brought to earth with Him, so he is definitely not referring to a distant date whereas your second scripture is referring to the distant apocalyptical prophecies, when he is talking about:
This generation shall not pass away, he had said previously that "when you shall see all these things..." the "all these things" would be all the events in verses 4-32, which he summed up nicely in vs. 33 by saying: Quote:
ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors
Of particular notice to a lot of Biblical scholars is verse 32 Quote:
Mat 24:32 Now from the fig tree learn her parable: when her branch is now become tender, and putteth forth its leaves, ye know that the summer is nigh;
A lot of scholars seem to think that the fig tree He is referring to is the restablishment of Israel in 1948, therefore they would speculate that that generation is the generation which would not pass away. Figuring that a "generation" would entail approximately 70-80 years would place the end of the world somewhere around the 2020-2030 range...who knows? 
|
|
|
|