Jesus is the way....wtf.

[Choku_Dorian]

No. Most mutations are benign.

i am talking about harmful/helpful(i thought that was clear), neutral mutations do nothing to prove evolution.

"The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reoncile with the view that mutation is the raw materials for evolution." - Encyclopedia Americana

"Most mutations are for the worse." -Isaac Asimov(Evolutionist), The Wellspring of life.

"Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful..." - the link you posted.

I'm sorry I was so off-base.


what did the fruit flies turn into? it still shows them as fruit flies.

Similarly. What good is belief if you are trying to find observations to back them up?

do you mean something believed to be true("hasnt been disproved"). but cannot be given a 'proven' explanation?
Example:

The accepted explanation for evolution is that DNA changes due to mutations and these mutations are selected for according to how well those mutations propagate through a population.

by "accepted explanation" do you mean "proven"?.

By "accepted explanation" I mean that it hasn't been disproved. That explanation is the best that fits the known evidence, and evidence to the contrary has yet to be discovered.

hypocrisy FTL.

It follows to say that using science to prove religion and religion to interpret science is an exercise in futility and incompatibility.

i really hope you are not referring to me. i was not trying to prove religion, if you think that, you are sadly mistaken and need to reread what i said.

i simply stated that science, nor you, nor anyone else on this planet can 'disprove' god. since he is not scientific. nothing about proving religion.

i do not need science to back up my beliefs, i was merely pointing out that the evidence you claim does not contradict them.

thank you for drawing conclusions and putting words in my mouth though, i appreciate it.

goodnight sir. :boring:

 

[Okami]

nice bikes in the background

 

[obby]

i am talking about harmful/helpful(i thought that was clear), neutral mutations do nothing to prove evolution.

"The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reoncile with the view that mutation is the raw materials for evolution." - Encyclopedia Americana

"Most mutations are for the worse." -Isaac Asimov(Evolutionist), The Wellspring of life.

"Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful..." - the link you posted.

I'm sorry I was so off-base.

what did the fruit flies turn into? it still shows them as fruit flies.

That beneficial mutations occur is by itself evidence of evolution. However I didn't intend that comment as proof, I meant it as a correction of your false statement.

I don't have access to a current revision of that Encyclopedia to verify that quote in your source, however you must've missed the part of school where they told you encyclopedias are not an authoritative source; in other words an opinion in an encyclopedia that has no source itself has little merit.

Asimov was a great sci fi writer, and he wrote books on countless subjects, however he was not a geneticist, and even if he was at the time that book was published the understanding of DNA is not as good as now, so that quote is not authoritative.

Also, If you're going to try and use my own source against me, do your best to read it fully.

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Cherry picking sources is not how you go about fully investigating something, it's how one tries to prove their biased, preconceived notions.

The fruit flies? They speciated, genetic mutations were selected for because of a change in food source and the two groups no longer interbreed. It shows that beneficial changes can occur and that they will propagate. I pointed out that example because you made a false statement, and I again wanted to correct you; speciation happens and can be observed and can be induced. Though, by the nature of the question you posed I guess you want evidence of common descent then? Something more along the lines of evidence that mammals and reptiles share a common ancestor? In the link I pasted earlier there is this little trinket. If reptiles and mammals are not descendant from a common ancestor then why are there mammal embryos with vestigal egg shells and egg teeth(reptilian traits)? Again, (and I hate to fall back on this) you are claiming evolution is false because you are ignorant of the evidence, willfully or otherwise.

i really hope you are not referring to me. i was not trying to prove religion, if you think that, you are sadly mistaken and need to reread what i said.

i simply stated that science, nor you, nor anyone else on this planet can 'disprove' god. since he is not scientific. nothing about proving religion.

i do not need science to back up my beliefs, i was merely pointing out that the evidence you claim does not contradict them.

thank you for drawing conclusions and putting words in my mouth though, i appreciate it.

goodnight sir. :boring:

I wasn't referring to you in particular, I was speaking in a general sense. I made a general, related comment about science and religion because I couldn't understand exactly what you were trying to say. Also the part where you said god cannot be disproved kinda jives with what I said. The part that may apply to you was the one you didn't quote, wherein circular reasoning was described.

I think it's about time you brought forth your own evidence-supported opinion on how different species came into being. I feel I've presented enough evidence on evolution, and enough rebuttal to your comments, and enough logical arguments. This could go on forever, however the toll is greater on me because in response to my arguments you post unsubstantiated fluff; which I in turn check for you, and in turn you ask more questions and make more fluffy claims that can be answered by yourself if you cared to.

It's your turn to present an argument. What is your explanation and what is your evidence?

 

[Choku_Dorian]

Mutations are more harmful than beneficial thousands to one. no?

Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful...

here it is for you again. i will try to break it down so its easier for you to understand this time. if you take note of the elipses in my initial quote of it, i put "..." those there so you would know i did read the entire paragraph, but only needed those words to verify my statement. which is NOT false. your lack of reasoning and understanding baffles me.

Cherry picking sources is not how you go about fully investigating something, it's how one tries to prove their biased, preconceived notions.

the words i quoted supported what i stated, the words you underlined supported what you believe.

Hypocrisy twice.

Mutations have never been found to bring about a new species. no?

check the verbage in the article of the fruit flies:

it was observed that the flies continued to prefer mating with others from the same original population.

Definitions of 'prefer':

1. like better; value more highly; "Some people prefer camping to staying in hotels"; "We prefer sleeping outside"
2. choose: select as an alternative; choose instead; prefer as an alternative; "I always choose the fish over the meat courses in this restaurant"; "She opted for the job on the East coast"
3. promote over another; "he favors his second daughter"
4. give preference to one creditor over another

It does not say they were unable to mate, willfully or by artificial insemination(w/e it is called regarding insects) with the other population.
Thus, no speciation. sorry.


my statements were not false. i presented evidence that most significant mutations are harmful, and you still say i am wrong. i am not going over every statement i made to prove myself right. you are clearly bias and it will not prove anything.

there is no kown fact that proves evolution. scientific speculation merely suggests it as a logical explanation of our existence. In turn, preaching evolution as fact is the epitome of dogmatism.



I bet you would love for me to humour you with my 'inferior' non-scientific beliefs. But it would be an excercise in futility toward a scientifically biased person as yourself.

As far as i am concerned, evolution holds no validity and this discussion is over.

 

[obby]

here it is for you again. i will try to break it down so its easier for you to understand this time. if you take note of the elipses in my initial quote of it, i put "..." those there so you would know i did read the entire paragraph, but only needed those words to verify my statement. which is NOT false. your lack of reasoning and understanding baffles me.

This is a bit of a tangent, remember that you were the one who claimed that most mutations were harmful, and that's false(you later backtracked), however you are still not getting the big picture. Harmful mutations can prevent an organism from being born alive, making it into adulthood, or breeding, so in a given population beneficial mutations will propogate more than harmful ones.

the words i quoted supported what i stated, the words you underlined supported what you believe.

I don't see how this isn't cherry picking. Given an article, you selected the part that supported your opinion, while disregarding the rest of it. I underlined the words to place emphasis on it so you understand the nature of detrimental mutations. Remember that my original statement was most mutations are neutral, so I had no further need to prove anything, only educate.

"It does not say they were unable to mate, willfully or by artificial insemination(w/e it is called regarding insects) with the other population.
Thus, no speciation. sorry.

Horses prefer to breed with other horses, however a horse will occasionally mate with a donkey, and produce offspring. Does this mean that both horses and donkeys are the same species?

i am not going over every statement i made to prove myself right.

That is obvious at this point.

you are clearly bias and it will not prove anything.

If you show me evidence of your as of yet undeclared viewpoint, I will take it into consideration. Compare and contrast with what you are doing.

there is no kown fact that proves evolution. scientific speculation merely suggests it as a logical explanation of our existence. In turn, preaching evolution as fact is the epitome of dogmatism.

Up to today, evolution is a fact. There is evidence in abundance and nothing contradicts it. It is not speculation, speculation implies that it is not based on evidence. Also if it is based on evidence and new evidence is able to refine, support or deny it, how is it dogmatic?

I bet you would love for me to humour you with my 'inferior' non-scientific beliefs. But it would be an excercise in futility toward a scientifically biased person as yourself.

If your opinions of the natural world are not based on natural evidence, then I will soundly call them inferior for any practical worldly purpose.

As far as i am concerned, evolution holds no validity and this discussion is over.

You don't seem concerned about checking your facts, you don't seem concerned with examining the evidence, you don't seem concerned with acquainting yourself with what science is and and you don't seem concerned with presenting your counterclaim. If your concerns are so few in this matter, then with what authority can you state that evolution holds no validity?

 

[Choku_Dorian]

ok you win.

i cant debate this anymore. its becoming far too redundant.

if you want to believe the statements i made are false. i obviously cant stop that.

i cannot disprove evolution, i admit that(i have stated many times that i know it cannot be disproved). its just the facts that support the theory are not as convincing to me personally that there is no other explanation.

i have researched alot, maybe not in comparison to the amount you have as regarding evolution, but compared to the general non-scientific public, i have some hours under my belt. howstuffworks.com>*

i research things and try to take it from many points of veiw(creationist, evolutionist, atheist etc...), and while the supporting facts i found, and that you brought to my attention do make sense toward the explanation you propose, these same facts in no way contradict or cancel out my beliefs about the origins of life, in fact, many of them coincide. so i see no need for me to change what i believe and accept something new.

understand where i am coming from? capeesh?

 

[Piner]

ok you win.

And the winrawr!!! is obby!!! Yay! im going to bed now Ihave been awake for like 2 days straight..... i feel really gooooood ......NOT! lol

 

[Choku_Dorian]

And the winrawr!!! is obby!!!

he wins in debate skills...

 

[ZenkiSX]

You all lose. Back to Topic, he can put what he wants on his car. You guys put drift stickers on your cars dont you? Does that make you posers? for most.... yeah lol.

 

[obby]

if you want to believe the statements i made are false. i obviously cant stop that.

If you scroll up you'll notice I took time to test your statements, I didn't just dismiss your statements based on belief. Most people have beliefs and bias by default but I try not to let mine get in the way of considering other people's viewpoints.

i cannot disprove evolution, i admit that(i have stated many times that i know it cannot be disproved).

This contradicts with what you've said in this thread, maybe that's what you've said before in real life?

its just the facts that support the theory are not as convincing to me personally that there is no other explanation.

i research things and try to take it from many points of veiw(creationist, evolutionist, atheist etc...), and while the supporting facts i found, and that you brought to my attention do make sense toward the explanation you propose, these same facts in no way contradict or cancel out my beliefs about the origins of life, in fact, many of them coincide. so i see no need for me to change what i believe and accept something new.
understand where i am coming from? capeesh?

I almost understand. Personally I believe one should always be willing to accept something new. Once you stop accepting new things, you've stopped growing.

However I feel you've hit on something we may agree on, and I'm going to repeat it for emphasis.

and while the supporting facts i found, and that you brought to my attention do make sense toward the explanation you propose, these same facts in no way contradict or cancel out my beliefs about the origins of life, in fact, many of them coincide.

I mentioned earlier that it is usually a fruitless endeavor to debate religion with science, because of the root nature of the two are diametrically opposed philosophies (faith vs observation). However because the two are so separate, they can still exist alongside each other. A summary statement can be made about evolution(unless one is a strict biblical literalist, something that has issues particularly if one doesn't read ancient hebrew/aramaic/greek) that shows how religion and science can be in harmony:

God created evolution.

You can believe in god and accept that it's possible evolution is something implemented by god, and you can be a scientific skeptic and accept evolution while still acknowledging it's possible that there is a creator of the universe, evolution being a property of that creation. There is room for one viewpoint in the other. If you continue to research(especially if you watch the PBS documentary which has an entire hour episode on how religion doesn't necessarily have to conflict with evolution) you may eventually find that there is no real conflict, as the catholic church has stated for many years now.