• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Evolution

It happens over a timescale which is impossible to observe but that's completely irrelevant when DNA provides the evidence.

What does DNA do? Give me an answer, you know you want to...
 
Conscious Bob said:
It happens over a timescale which is impossible to observe but that's completely irrelevant when DNA provides the evidence.

What does DNA do? Give me an answer, you know you want to...
Click to expand...

It is SO NOT irrelevant and just saying it is irrelevant doesn't make it so. So once again we must just all take it on faith that this thing that can not be proved or observed to happen does in fact happen? Even though the physical evidence that it might have happened does not exist and everything that can be observed points to some other process?

WHY am I even bothering to continue saying anything?
 
Meadow337 said:
It is SO NOT irrelevant and just saying it is irrelevant doesn't make it so. So once again we must just all take it on faith that this thing that can not be proved or observed to happen does in fact happen? Even though the physical evidence that it might have happened does not exist and everything that can be observed points to some other process?
Click to expand...

It is if the only thing that's going to convince you is an experiment that'll take thousands of years to produce results. I know you like astronomy would you place the same restriction on an astronomer to prove that galaxies spin?

Whatever this other process is you don't seem to know and you're very evasive when asked direct questions about DNA and even dog breeding. If you were a teacher and a little kid asked you what dog breeding was, would you give the kid the answer you gave me? That would say a lot about creationism in the classroom...
 
Conscious Bob said:
It is if the only thing that's going to convince you is an experiment that'll take thousands of years to produce results. I know you like astronomy would you place the same restriction on an astronomer to prove that galaxies spin?

Whatever this other process is you don't seem to know and you're very evasive when asked direct questions about DNA and even dog breeding. If you were a teacher and a little kid asked you what dog breeding was, would you give the kid the answer you gave me? That would say a lot about creationism in the classroom...
Click to expand...

The Doppler Shift effect proves that some galaxies spin. Extrapolating that to suggest ours does is a stretch ie using an observable and measurable phenomenon to prove something unobservable and unmeasurable is not good science.

So stick that in your DNA pipe and smoke it :p
 
Meadow337 said:
The Doppler Shift effect proves that some galaxies spin. Extrapolating that to suggest ours does is a stretch ie using an observable and measurable phenomenon to prove something unobservable and unmeasurable is not good science.

So stick that in your DNA pipe and smoke it :p
Click to expand...

My point stands, galaxies revolve too slowly to be observed spinning so scientists have to rely on another method to prove the theory. DNA does for evolution what Doppler shift does for astronomy, I'll have a cigar thankyou.
 
If the advocates of Intelligent Design restricted themselves to parts of science we don't have evidence for that would be acceptable but they don't.
Click to expand...

I think you might be missing the point. I am not advocating that intelligent design be taught in schools right next to evolution. I just think it would make sense to at least mention that there are alternative views. Not teach them. Just mention them. Possibly a little more critical examination of the holes in the theory might be in order also, because of, well this :

And that is the issue! Countless experiments with thousands of generations of fruit flies (chosen because their lifespan is mere hours) is yet to produce a single organism that is not 100% a fruit fly. Deliberate outside gene manipulation does not in any way prove that total natural selection ever results in the kind of change to the organism that even vaguely points at its ability to ever produce some other kind of organism. Even that idiot, Dawkins, recognises that.

I entirely fail to understand why this is so utterly hard to comprehend. No new species or even a hint of change that would lead to a new species has been observed. And I don't mean a 'new' species that biologists label a 'new' species when it is still observably a fruit fly / bacteria / whatever. Show me one instance where it is observed in any way that ANYTHING changes into something completely different.

Ignoring origin of life for a moment and why that in itself is a huge thorn in the side of evolution - evolution still says we all came from the same unicellular organisms - which means that at some point these changed into completely different organisms - and yet it can not show even one instance of this happening.
Click to expand...

To Bob : That seems like a pretty big hole. And to say that this is irrelevant is the type of comment that leads people to question whether this is science or a belief system pushing an agenda.

To Meadow : why not answer the question about DNA and dog breeding plainly so that it is out there? I don't understand the lack of willingness on your part to answer the question. Am I missing something?
 
To 753C, I can't help that, evolution can't be tested real time for species change because it's way too slow. The parameters stipulated by Meadow can't be met because we're not going to be here by the time the experiment is over. I stand by the point that physics gets round the meta timescale by other methods, so does genetics.

The DNA molecule was discovered as the result of scientific experiment and it's the fundamental core of genetic science. Gene mapping is how biologists research the genetic past and predict the genetic future.
 
The DNA molecule was discovered as the result of scientific experiment and it's the fundamental core of genetic science. Gene mapping is how biologists research the genetic past and predict the genetic future.
Click to expand...
How does DNA show evidence for macroevolution or large scale evolution? Is that evidence so profoundly overwhelming that it makes observing large scale evolution irrelevant?
 
When I say irrelevant I don't mean trivial, the conditions required for Meadow's experiment (as she has ruled out fruit fly experimentation) happen far too slowly, we'll be dead by the time the results come in, that's the true meaning of 'irrelevant'.

You've heard of DNA fingerprinting, genetic mapping is similar but much more in depth. We now know for instance that cattle and dolphins are related despite being different species.
 
Last edited:
gotcha. it's only irrelevant to us, right here and now, because we wouldn't be able to see the end result of the experiment.
Would you say gene mapping provides conclusive evidence of macroevolution?
When you say related, do you mean that they share similar or identical genetic information?
 
Conclusive.
Click to expand...

Well, that says it.
You are apparently convinced. I could play the role and parrot the view that shared genetic information points to design as much as to evolution. And we could probably have a discussion about that too. But.... I think the argument comes down to faith. Your faith is in what you have stated. Mine will stay in it's place as well. And faith is a tough thing to shake, if it is genuine. I like to think that no matter what science uncovers, my faith will shape what I believe. I do hope though, that the same thing doesn't happen with scientists. That would be against the rules. :)
Anyway thanks to you and BeerGood and Meadow for a good discussion and lots of information and good arguments from both sides. I have spent way too much time here in the last few days. :)
 
GrayHairedOne said:
Do people generally lump Christians in with people who do not believe in evolution you think?
Click to expand...

Yes that does seem to be the general perception. Possibly because it is usually perceived as a creationism vs evolution debate rather than a 'there are logical flaws in the theory of evolution' debate.
 
Meadow337 said:
Yes that does seem to be the general perception. Possibly because it is usually perceived as a creationism vs evolution debate rather than a 'there are logical flaws in the theory of evolution' debate.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember reading those supposed flaws...

Woof woof.
 
Conscious Bob said:
Well the Bible starts with the book of Genesis which promotes quite a different explanation.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that the book of Genesis creation story conflicts with the general theory behind evolution. At all. For a long time I did but after a very careful reading I think they align quite nicely.
 
What I mean is that a casual read of the account of creation tends to make it appear that there are contradictions between what is written versus the generally accepted scientific explanation. But a careful read will turn-up a very close correlation between the Genesis account and what scientists believe happened.

Particularly convincing, to me at least, is the order of events in the creation story. I can go into details if you really want me to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top