Guest jeanine Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 lol....my kitty could kick YOUR kitty's ASS! yes..she's full grown. notice how she hates my fiance...see the look on her face? lol those christians who don't understand how adaptation plays a role in evolution, please visit: http://dllab.caltech.edu/research/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 lol....my kitty could kick YOUR kitty's ASS! yes..she's full grown. notice how she hates my fiance...see the look on her face? lol Hi Jeanine! Welcome to these forums! So ya' wanna debate whose cat would win a fight? Just kidding. I look forward to seeing you around! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (entire post above) Wonderfully stated! Of course, Tx will not deal with any of these points. So sad. I guess he's not genuinely interested in understanding our perspectives. Or put another way, he really doesn't care what we think. All that matters to him is that he's "right" and we're "wrong". Boy, that's appealing! Makes me want to become Christian right now, so I don't have to make any effort with people anymore!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Exactly. I've come to the conclusion that one of the main problems between us and them is that we argue and debate to learn, whereas they're trying to win. They think it's like a contest or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redneck22 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 [What this means for the TOE is that ultra-complcated proteins supposedly formed accidentally and serve specifically and deliberately to prevent mutations. In other woros, abiogenesis/evolution designed mechanisms whose function is to prohibit evolution. I agree txviper, it appears its not only polymerase that have that function but other unknown genetic mechanisms as well. "MUTATION REPAIRING PLANT DEFIES EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS, according to reports in news@nature and ScienceNOW, 23 Mar 2005. Susan Lolle and Robert Pruitt of Purdue University, Indiana have been studying a mutant plant gene called HOTHEAD which prevents cress plant flowers from opening properly. Plants with two copies of this gene have their floral parts stuck together in little balls. The deformed flowers can self-fertilise, which means offspring therefore can only inherit two copies of the mutant gene, so they should have deformed flowers as well. However, Lolle and Pruit found that up to ten percent of such offspring have normal flowers. This is only possible if one of the mutant genes has been replaced by a normal gene. But according to accepted laws of genetics, this could not happen because parent plants only had mutant genes to give to offspring. When researchers sequenced the gene in the second generation plants which had the unexpected normal flowers (i.e. read its genetic code letters), they found the newly normal plants had indeed replaced the mutated genetic code with the normal code. The scientists then studied other mutant genes and found some of the plants were also able to return these to ancestral normal forms as well. The only way plants could have done this is if they had some kind of "back-up" copy of the normal gene to check the mutation against. However, the plants have not been found to have a back up copy in their DNA, so the source of the back-up copy is still undiscovered. Some scientists suggest it may be RNA, which could passed into pollen or seeds. news@nature article: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050321/ful...21-8.html" The more we study processes involved in storing and passing on genetic information, the more evidence we find genes are designed to NOT evolve. (The ScienceNOW article was entitled "Evolution in Reverse".) Whatever method these cress plants use to repair broken DNA it makes evolution by mutation a whole lot harder, and reproduction "after their kind" more certain. It is possible that in the original good world God made, all living organisms had such a back up system fully functional so that any mutations were repaired within one generation and therefore never accumulated across generations, but as the world degenerated after the fall and after Noah's flood, this back up system it gradually degenerated and now only works in a small percentage of cells. It makes devolution possible, but not evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Perhaps you could explain exactly how this is a problem for evolution, because I'm not seeing it. From what I see, you picked a resource that allows you to gloss over the specifics. In fact, since your resource requires paid membership to view, I can't even check your accuracy, but from what I've seen of you posts thus far (including this one), you have no idea what the theory of evolution even is. You've chosen to hang the entire topic on one sentence, which states that this strange behavior of reproduction "defies evolutionary genetics", but that doesn't mean that it refutes it. In fact, had you bothered to read the rest of the section you posted, you'd see that the conclusions you're trying to suggest do not logically follow the discovery. For one thing, I see nothing here that suggests that the processes of mutation and natural selection, as the vehicles of evolution, are wrong. You've just dogmatically assumed so, but just for the sake of argument, I'd like you to present an outline of how, precisely, this refutes the process of evolution. Not only that, but I fail to see how you've been able to jump to the assumption that there's any design involved. If you mean to suggest that creation wins simply because evolution cannot explain the phenomenon, then you are arguing from ignorance, which I can't help but infer from the highlighted portion of the following quote. The more we study processes involved in storing and passing on genetic information, the more evidence we find genes are designed to NOT evolve. (The ScienceNOW article was entitled "Evolution in Reverse".) Whatever method these cress plants use to repair broken DNA it makes evolution by mutation a whole lot harder, and reproduction "after their kind" more certain. It is possible that in the original good world God made, all living organisms had such a back up system fully functional so that any mutations were repaired within one generation and therefore never accumulated across generations, but as the world degenerated after the fall and after Noah's flood, this back up system it gradually degenerated and now only works in a small percentage of cells. It makes devolution possible, but not evolution. Without a shred of evidence in your favor, you've gone from an unwarranted dismissal of evolution to the erroneous assumption that this discovery supports the flood! Not only is your jump to design totally unwarranted, but your sudden leap to Biblical creation is a total non sequitur and thus inappropriate in this sort of discussion. You've committed a false dichotomy by assuming that if evolution isn't true, then Christianity wins. I'll assume that, since you're an honorable person, you'll recant this assumption immediately and admit your fallacious error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Without a shred of evidence in your favor, you've gone from an unwarranted dismissal of evolution to the erroneous assumption that this discovery supports the flood! Not only is your jump to design totally unwarranted, but your sudden leap to Biblical creation is a total non sequitur and thus inappropriate in this sort of discussion. You've committed a false dichotomy by assuming that evolution is true, then Christianity wins. I'll assume that, since you're an honorable person, you'll recant this assumption immediately and admit your fallacious error. Mr Neil, I hope they listen to you. They remind me of me when I came onto this site. I thought that maybe a flood happened in the world as they knew it then.... because I saw a show on TV that demonstrated how these directions to build the ark could do what it said. This site started me thinking... reasoning how could someone put two of EVERY animal on the boat, what are they all going to eat, and when they get off the boat... no plants, no nothing after a flood... what do they all eat? Each other? Next, on this site, it caused me to find in the NT stating that the flood and its ilk in the OT are just fables. Of course I think your theory explains HOW "God" did it, instead of the magically appearing one they suggest, which they must then admit God also plants false evidence (fossils) to fool us or test our faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 This site started me thinking... reasoning how could someone put two of EVERY animal on the boat, what are they all going to eat, and when they get off the boat... no plants, no nothing after a flood... what do they all eat? Each other? Next, on this site, it caused me to find in the NT stating that the flood and its ilk in the OT are just fables.That's right. And that's precisely what astonishes me. They're really quick to dismiss evolution on the instant something queer happens in biology, but they don't give the flood a second thought. Heck, they probably don't even give it a first thought. Sometimes I don't know whether to shake my head in disappointment or laugh like a hyena. There is so much wrong with the flood, aside from the fact that it's obviously a fabel, that it shouldn't even come up in the discussion. You're right. What the heck do they eat when they're off the ark? Are they exempt from having to eat until the populations explode again? I'm sure God could do it! He could do anything! And that's precisely the problem, because that's how Christian's think. They have a God that basically has unlimited magic, and any time we point out that their stories are bullshit, they can just fall back on God's unlimited magic powers to make that which is astonishingly absurd into reality. It makes them shut their minds off and ignore what is plainly impossible. The problem with vegetation that you pointed out is actually one of my favorites, because it not only creates a dietary problem for the animals, but it also creates a huge problem for plant life. How did the plants survive? Trees don't live under water, especially when it lasts a year. What vegetation there would be would have had to hyper evolve and diversify just to get back to what it is now. That's ridiculous, and if creationists are willing to fool themselves into thinking that that much evolution can happen in 4000 years, then they believe in a whole lot more evolution than I do. The more logical explanation is simply the fact that ancient hebrews had no idea that plants and trees were living organisms. They just assumed that they were part of the topography, like rocks and dirt. Heck, even dirt is technically alive, as it's partially composed of decaying plant matter. So that being the case, the writers of Genesis never gave it a second thought and told the story of water covering the Earth, trees and all, assuming that it would return to its status quo once the water receeded. And, of course, what was the first sign of dry land discovered by Noah? A branh from a tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 And that's precisely the problem, because that's how Christian's think. They have a God that basically has unlimited magic, and any time we point out that their stories are bullshit, they can just fall back on God's unlimited magic powers to make that which is astonishingly absurd into reality. It makes them shut their minds off and ignore what is plainly impossible. Mr Neil, I didn't just change my mind right away about things. No! I said I started thinking, and reasoning... and it took time. That's why I said I hope they stick around longer and listen to you. Although, I haven't changed my mind on EVERYTHING! The more logical explanation is simply the fact that ancient hebrews had no idea that plants and trees were living organisms. They just assumed that they were part of the topography, like rocks and dirt. Heck, even dirt is technically alive, as it's partially composed of decaying plant matter. So that being the case, the writers of Genesis never gave it a second thought and told the story of water covering the Earth, trees and all, assuming that it would return to its status quo once the water receeded. It seems some of these fables are based upon some life occurrence. They attach a story with a moral to it, include a bit of popular mythology at the time, so that it makes a more significant impact! Maybe only the interesting/popular stories survived. I think the flood may be based on a real scenario... not a total world flood... and I'm sure there was NO ark. A zoo couldn't even hold all those animals! Look here at this timeline under 5600 BC. Many different cultures also claimed a flood, and it was probably just one of those rare localized occurrences like the Tsunami we just had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Helmet Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Many different cultures also claimed a flood, and it was probably just one of those rare localized occurrences like the Tsunami we just had. It probably was the flooding of the Black sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 It seems some of these fables are based upon some life occurrence. They attach a story with a moral to it, include a bit of popular mythology at the time, so that it makes a more significant impact! Maybe only the interesting/popular stories survived. I think the flood may be based on a real scenario... not a total world flood... and I'm sure there was NO ark. A zoo couldn't even hold all those animals! Look here at this timeline under 5600 BC. Many different cultures also claimed a flood, and it was probably just one of those rare localized occurrences like the Tsunami we just had.Well, it's more than likely that it is based on real events. I would absolutely agree with that. I was simply commenting on stories in which the author doesn't consider (or is unaware of) the logical ends of the event. The author never stopped to consider what the world would look like after a flood or what the animals would eat. Of course, that part of the story isn't important, and even modern storytelling will tend to ignore minor details that would otherwise get in the way of the point of the story. The story itself is about starting anew. If one actually applies this story literally, though, then it's actually quite a disturbing tale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts