Quote :

"But the more I think about it, the more I wonder what exactly is a "mistake"? Anyone wanna lay some knowledge on me as to exactly what happens to cause mistakes in DNA copying?"

mistake isnt the best word.

basicaly, a pair of molecules need to line up to get a correct copy of single stand of DNA, via H-bonding btw.

now, if something hapens, if they dont positions correctly, for whatever reason, maybe the molecule got bumped, maybe weird temp or pH, maybe radiation, the molecule wont correctly detect its pair, and will insert the wrong base.


now, once that DNA strand starts getting expressed, once your a full grown lad, this little defect may be good or bad.

perhaps it was somewhere right in the sweet spot of lactose metabolizing protein. now you cant drink milk without getting a case of the shits






[Edited on August 2, 2005 at 6:17 PM. Reason : -]

8/2/2005 6:14:42 PM

Quote :

"you don't know that (or if you do, how do you know?)"

Law of reciprocal actions

No action is independant of all other actions. Everything is determined by something else. Tell me one thing in this world that is random. Dice roll? no, computer generated random numbers? no, Electron position in a cloud? certainly possible (just like the existence of a god or anything else), but not likely.

8/2/2005 6:16:14 PM

Quote :

"If you simply look at it as amoeba to man, then yes, it does appear to be blind luck."

no matter who says this, its always true.

the amoeba may say to himself, well, look at the supernovas required to produce the heavy atoms i need to build my cell walls. thats just dumb luck.

8/2/2005 6:18:38 PM

Mutations are only one very small part of evolution. Mutations normally dont happen frequently enough for it to make much of a difference anyway. Natural selection, genetic flow and genetic variation within a population are the factors thought to account for the larger events in evolution.

8/2/2005 6:36:20 PM

What's the difference between a mutation and a variation?

8/2/2005 6:37:28 PM

^mutations are how we accomplish variation

8/2/2005 6:41:05 PM

^ Well mutations dont always lead to variation and not all variation is caused by mutation.

Not every mutation is inheritable so variation doesn't always follow. Many of the variations that are seen within the same species come from natural selection as opposed to mutations.

For natuarl selection to take place a population has to vary so something can be favored over the less desirable trait.

8/2/2005 6:49:20 PM

^^That's what I thought.

^Not sure what he's talking about.

8/2/2005 6:53:19 PM

Quote :

"Tell me one thing in this world that is random."

Technically, everything is random.

8/2/2005 7:02:48 PM

^^^yea the mutations do have to occur in the sperm or ova cells that eventually become the seed of the person -- i kinda assumed that was an obvious fact

8/2/2005 9:09:44 PM

I believe that God did the prep work, then evolution took place.

8/2/2005 9:12:22 PM

^Why is that so hard to believe?

8/2/2005 9:20:07 PM

It's an almost-believeable (in that silly, wishful thinking sort of way) interpretation of intelligent design, really.

8/2/2005 9:21:23 PM

HOGWASH

TELL ME THIS PEOPLE

HOW CAN YOUR PRECIOUS EVOLUTION THEORY ACCOUNT FOR THE FORMATION OF THE EYE?

CLEARLY IT HAD TO BE DESIGNED BY A SUPREME BEING, JUST AS WE DESIGNED THE CAMERA...

YOU DON'T SEE RANDOM CAMERA PARTS JUST "ACCIDENTALLY" FALLING TOGETHER TO MAKE A WORKING CAMERA, DO YOU?

8/2/2005 9:48:59 PM

^the eye is fairly simple.


christ, single celled organism can sense light -- its quite easy, its quite basic.


^nobody here is saying evolution was an accident. again, you represent an ignorant strain of people who think evolution claims the way things came about was by accident.

again, the eye came to be because of sucessive variation and selection over millions of years.

[Edited on August 2, 2005 at 10:05 PM. Reason : 0]

8/2/2005 10:03:42 PM

AND YOU STILL CAN'T EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THE EYE WAS "EVOLVED"

JUST LIKE YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN MOST EVERYTHING THAT YOUR SILLY THEORY CLAIMS.

8/2/2005 10:08:46 PM

^i told you. it is simple. but im sure your intuition is more correct then the collective intellegence of the millions of biolgists who have studied this issue





The likely evolution of single-chambered eyes. Arrows indicate functional developments, not specific evolutionary pathways.


a Pit eye, common throughout the lower phyla.
b Pinhole of Haliotis (abalone) or Nautilus.
c Eye with a lens.
d Eye with homogeneous lens, showing failure to focus.
e Eye with lens having a gradient of refractive index.
f Multiple lens eye of male Pontella.
g Two-lens eye of the copepod crustacean Copilia. Solid arrow shows image position and
h Terrestrial eye of Homo sapiens with cornea and lens;
i Mirror eye of the scallop Pecten.

[Edited on August 2, 2005 at 10:36 PM. Reason : 0]

8/2/2005 10:35:35 PM

Quote :

"if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

i could be wrong, but I don't think we "evolved from monkeys." Rather, monkeys and man have a common ancestor...

Quote :

"Wings were probably first used for gliding moreso than actual flight. "

this might be the case, but his original point still stands. even for just gliding, there is a certain amount of a wing that would be necessary. otherwise you just fall to the ground. The change (for a land animal) from a simple limb to a glide-sustaining wing is dramatic and can not be easily explained by evolution...

Of course, if you look at this from the perspective of a sea animal evolving into a bird, then I think it gets a bit easier, as fins are quite adept at aiding gliding through water. Water and air share a great deal of similarity, so...

8/2/2005 10:39:20 PM

Quote :

"6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor. The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, If children descended from adults, why are there still adults? New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct."

[Edited on August 2, 2005 at 10:46 PM. Reason : 4]

8/2/2005 10:45:43 PM

Quote :

"i could be wrong, but I don't think we "evolved from monkeys." Rather, monkeys and man have a common ancestor..."

This is true, I was just keeping it simple.

Quote :

"this might be the case, but his original point still stands. even for just gliding, there is a certain amount of a wing that would be necessary."

You'd need no more wing than a normal arm, all you'd need is for your arm to be webbed to your torso.


It's not very dramatic even for mammals. But birds most likely came from reptiles, many of which have some webbing to begin with.

The skin flaps would also have the additional advantage of making the creature look larger to scare away predators. This is an adaptation seen commonly in nature by animals that don't even use the flaps for flight.

Quote :

"Of course, if you look at this from the perspective of a sea animal evolving into a bird, then I think it gets a bit easier, as fins are quite adept at aiding gliding through water. Water and air share a great deal of similarity, so..."

This isn't really much of a possibility due to the food sources in a body of water. You generally only find smaller fish near the surface because there are only small things to eat, and a creature would need to move fast in order to avoid predators. Secondly, it would be very difficult to find an environment where a fish would need to fly any higher than a few inches off the surface, as there isn't a great deal of life several feet above the water.

8/3/2005 1:30:43 AM

Josh8315, that shit you posted is a chart with a bunch of different designs of eyes. DESIGNS

it does NOT in ANY way show how they "evolved" as you heathens say it did.

look, the majority of enlightened people realize that science is trying to explain away the simple FACT that life is a work of art, created by the greatest artist in the universe.

8/3/2005 2:07:06 AM

anyone who believes in creationism is an idiot

though that doesn't mean they have to believe in darwin's evolutionary theories, either

oh by the way, since i rarely post in The Soap Box...DEMOCRATS

8/3/2005 2:12:35 AM

8/3/2005 2:14:32 AM

8/3/2005 2:18:22 AM

Quote :

"anyone who believes in creationism is an idiot"

see its thinking like this that gets us nowhere

"my way!"

"your way?!?! my way!!!!"

"no way!"

its just to many ways.

8/3/2005 2:25:05 AM

There is no known case where a genetic mutation has been beneficial to a species aka evolution on the macro scale has not been proven...but it has been proven that evolution exists on a micro scale..


there are lots of types of horse type animals that cannot intermix to yeild fertile offspring .....so ummmm where are the other types of humans that should exist taht won't yeild fertile offspring only hybrids?!

8/3/2005 3:11:32 AM

If they existed, we would have killed them off in more primative times.

8/3/2005 4:12:11 AM

^exactly.

evolutionary history exposes that there was a time when two different species of humanoids existed (though i forget which two they were). only one of them made it while the other was wiped out, supposedly, due to an inability to adapt to a changing environment

i don't have time to look up which two they were right now, but will do it later tonight.

8/3/2005 7:08:18 AM

^^ proof? how do we know that? why havent other species done the same thing then? or are they in the process of doing so?

Quote :

"but im sure your intuition is more correct then the collective intellegence of the millions of biolgists who have studied this issue "

Are you that fucking condescending and flat out stupid? How do you think these millions of intelligent people moved from thinking the world was flat or thinking the world was the center of the universe or (recently) thinking life was fragile and needed very specific conditions to exist?

fucking idiot



[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 8:03 AM. Reason : *]

8/3/2005 7:56:48 AM

Quote :

"How do you think these millions of intelligent people moved from thinking the world was flat or thinking the world was the center of the universe or (recently) thinking life was fragile and needed very specific conditions to exist?"

reading the bible?

OH WAIT!

they did by observing and studying nature.

pwnt

Quote :

"recently) thinking life was fragile and needed very specific conditions to exist?"

life exists in the most extreme conditions. you would know that if you werent stupid.

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 10:09 AM. Reason : 0]

8/3/2005 10:07:46 AM

Quote :

"reading the bible? OH WAIT! they did by observing and studying nature. pwnt"

claiming your own pwnt is beyond pathtic. Even moreso in this case since there has been no pwnting. Yes observing and studying. Obviously you think that this has been completed and done without flaw, otherwise you wouldnt be a choad to someone who looks at current theories and questions them. fucking prick.

Quote :

"life exists in the most extreme conditions. you would know that if you werent stupid."

And you would notice, if you werent stupid and could read, that we have moved from thinking that life is fragile and requires specific conditions to exist. i.e. I lumped it in there with thinking the world was flat and the earth is the center of the universe.

read it again, slowly

Quote :

"How do you think these millions of intelligent people moved from thinking the world was flat or thinking the world was the center of the universe or (recently) thinking life was fragile and needed very specific conditions to exist?"

get it now buddy?

pwnt?

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 10:21 AM. Reason : *]

8/3/2005 10:20:18 AM

Quote :

"How do you think these millions of intelligent people moved from thinking the world was flat or thinking the world was the center of the universe or (recently) thinking life was fragile and needed very specific conditions to exist"

the idea that life was fragile and needed very specific conditions to exist was never known. it was always speculation.

get your shit straight.

Quote :

"Josh8315, that shit you posted is a chart with a bunch of different designs of eyes. DESIGNS it does NOT in ANY way show how they "evolved" as you heathens say it did. look, the majority of enlightened people realize that science is trying to explain away the simple FACT that life is a work of art, created by the greatest artist in the universe."

im sorry you cannot see that. some poeple lack the mental capacity. nobody here is claiming god didnt create life, or, that god isnt the artist of the universe. again, we have a case of opposition fueled by ignorance becuase you dont even know what it is your oposing, you are just doing it becuase of some BS someone told you about evolution.

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 11:12 AM. Reason : 0]

8/3/2005 11:10:19 AM

Quote :

"nobody here is claiming god didnt create life, or, that god isnt the artist of the universe. "

let me be the first then. or at least i should say, there's no reason for me to think God or any being did this. there is also no reason for me to think there was an ultimate BEGINNING to the universe in the first place.

8/3/2005 11:14:45 AM

^thats fine. the theory of evolution simply states how speciation happened. it says nothing of who made it happen, or if it happened on its own.

8/3/2005 11:16:38 AM

fair enough. i just didn't want this to be a "we all believe in god AND evolution" thread. but yeah. evolution doesn't preclude theism or some interpretations of christianity.

8/3/2005 11:25:34 AM

Quote :

"the idea that life was fragile and needed very specific conditions to exist was never known. it was always speculation. get your shit straight. "

oh.

dear.

god.

I never said it was known as a fucking fact. It WAS the primary thought however, for a while, that life was fragile and needed specific conditions to exist. Now that we have studied it more we find life is much tougher than we ever thought. we were going off of what we knew and observed up to that point. Which is what we're continuing to do now.

hence

Quote :

"...or thinking the world was the center of the universe or (recently) thinking life was fragile and needed very specific conditions to exist? "

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 11:27 AM. Reason : *]

8/3/2005 11:25:39 AM

^^ its not. this is simply about the vailidity of evolution.

^ok, congrads. people 'think' a lot of things. maybe you should make a thread about current and past scientific speculation.

scientific theories change over time. it is the nature of science. it doesnt make the current thinking any less scientific to say that it may change over time.

by your logic, we shouldnt make any scientific statements about our universe because in the future we may be proved wrong.



[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 11:36 AM. Reason : -]

8/3/2005 11:34:06 AM

in case you didn't notice, i was being extremely sarcastic.

Evolution, both on a "micro" and "macro" scale as you people like to separate it, is supported by the vast majority of evidence, both genetic evidence and fossil evidence.

8/3/2005 11:35:51 AM

^i suspected so...but so that othes could observe the argument, i responded (many people do actually believe the things you say)

8/3/2005 11:38:05 AM

sad for them

8/3/2005 11:49:17 AM

Quote :

"by your logic, we shouldnt make any scientific statements about our universe because in the future we may be proved wrong. "

jesus youre an idiot.

my logic says exactly what you said:

Quote :

"scientific theories change over time. it is the nature of science."

We observe new things and make theories off of what we know about our universe. Its not constant nor is 100% certain.

my entire point was that we shouldnt be little assholes to people who question current theories with douchebag quips such as

Quote :

"but im sure your intuition is more correct then the collective intellegence of the millions of biolgists who have studied this issue "

Its not a hard concept.

8/3/2005 12:55:24 PM

Quote :

"my entire point was that we shouldnt be little assholes"

pot meet kettle


^also, i never said thoeries dont deserve questioning. creationists dont question evolution, they dont believe it is scientific fact, they believe that creationism is scientific fact. which is beyond just questioning evolution.

ok. i question some details about evolution. every does and should. that doesnt make the grand theory wrong, nor would i ever call someone a fucking idiot for questioning the mechanism by which it works -- i was very civil to locutus zero for asking about exactly how mutations happen and lead to changes in us.

i simply have no tolerance for those who claim evolution must be false becuaes they dont undestand how nature can produce complex things. thats not questioning, its just a nebulous philosophical objection.



[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 1:04 PM. Reason : -]

8/3/2005 1:00:18 PM

Quote :

"pot meet kettle"

hi, do we know how to quote entire quotes? Apparently not, because I definatley dont advocate never being an asshole. My point was dont be an asshole to people just because they question a theory and then explain why it doesnt make sense to them.

I fully support being assholes to people because it makes the internet more fun.

8/3/2005 1:32:25 PM

Quote :

"I definatley dont advocate never being an asshole"

well then you lead by example

8/3/2005 2:51:56 PM

only way to do it

8/3/2005 3:13:49 PM

i was interested in getting in on this, but then i found these two bickered this thread to death

8/3/2005 4:56:49 PM

Welcome too The Soap Box.

This happens in every single thread here.

We were lucky this lasted to page 2.

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 5:36 PM. Reason : ^you don't play Natural Selection do you, I saw someone on last night with a similar SN]

8/3/2005 5:36:02 PM

Quote :

"all you'd need is for your arm to be webbed to your torso."

and one small mutation in one fucking base-pair will cause that? I find that rather hard to believe...

8/3/2005 5:51:15 PM

no^, probably impossible from just one base pair

8/3/2005 6:29:00 PM

Quote :

"and one small mutation in one fucking base-pair will cause that? I find that rather hard to believe..."

No, but a small mutations over time could most certainly do it. Plenty of humans have webbed toes.

8/3/2005 6:43:16 PM