|
|
Post by Proof on Aug 14, 2017 20:50:36 GMT -5
Example: Fruit fly
There was a mutation that gave some fruit flys , 4 wings.
It wasn't beneficial, and thus it didn't produce any like kinds
If you found this in a fossil record, there is no way of knowing
What became of the " mutation " , but by hands on observation, we
See they couldn't benefit by such a structure. ✌️
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 14, 2017 21:32:52 GMT -5
The way I see it, is that change is the only thing that is true. Everything changes and things we have decided were truths centuries ago, we no longer take as truth. That's because humans are a work in progress, learning more and more about our environment etc. We have to throw away what we find no longer works or is true and work with our new discoveries to find even more amazing discoveries. I trust things that aren't written in stone because I know that we still have so much learning to do. The way I see it, taking an old book and not allowing anything in that book to change or be discarded is very limiting. We need to continue searching, discovering and letting go of things that we have found to be not true. Is it ok for climate to change? Is it ok for sun to cool down 1% or 2% ?? I don't see all changes as beneficial, we are fortunate to be in the Goldilocks zone, if you know what that means. !!! So when you "claim" there is no purpose to "life" , , Do we also claim that when we discover the purpose , we are witnessing
"Change for the good over time " 😉😉✌️👍👍
What scientists do you know who are saying that all changes as beneficial?
What scientists do you know who are saying that things change for the better as time goes by?
That is why it is impossible to really have any productive discussion with you.
You weren't even answering snow's post!
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 15, 2017 13:27:22 GMT -5
The way I see it, is that change is the only thing that is true. Everything changes and things we have decided were truths centuries ago, we no longer take as truth. That's because humans are a work in progress, learning more and more about our environment etc. We have to throw away what we find no longer works or is true and work with our new discoveries to find even more amazing discoveries. I trust things that aren't written in stone because I know that we still have so much learning to do. The way I see it, taking an old book and not allowing anything in that book to change or be discarded is very limiting. We need to continue searching, discovering and letting go of things that we have found to be not true. Is it ok for climate to change? Is it ok for sun to cool down 1% or 2% ?? I don't see all changes as beneficial, we are fortunate to be in the Goldilocks zone, if you know what that means. !!! So when you "claim" there is no purpose to "life" , , Do we also claim that when we discover the purpose , we are witnessing "Change for the good over time " 😉😉✌️👍👍 Of course it's okay for the climate to change. It's not here to sustain us. If we don't evolve to survive in whatever climate mother nature has to give us we will all die off. Like the dinosaurs. They couldn't change fast enough to survive. It very well could be that way for us and many other living species too. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 15, 2017 13:29:21 GMT -5
Does that mean you don't believe in God then? What is the "purpose" for teaching Creationists , about Some " fairytale"(aka: beneficial mutations) that is soo illogical?? That's my opinion. Maybe because it's the way it is? Doesn't learning the truth about things mean anything to you? We don't just learn about things we like, we also learn about things that might not be beneficial to us so we can determine ways to survive in spite of circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 15, 2017 13:31:40 GMT -5
Example: Fruit fly There was a mutation that gave some fruit flys , 4 wings. It wasn't beneficial, and thus it didn't produce any like kinds If you found this in a fossil record, there is no way of knowing What became of the " mutation " , but by hands on observation, we See they couldn't benefit by such a structure. ✌️ Humans are born with lots of things that are not beneficial to them or their survival. We see that all the time. Those who die before reproducing don't pass on their gene pool. Bottom line, this world was not made for us. We are the outcome of our world, it's climate etc. If we can't keep up with the change we will die too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 20:38:07 GMT -5
I might offer that although it may seem that you are speaking sense, to a scientist in the field the best way to have a conversation in this regard and in this format would be for you to do some serious reading in the subject. There are a whole host of resources which are free by which you can learn the fundamentals. It would be akin to me trying to refute the concept of binary code to a computer scientist. The best argument I may have is unlikely to be remotely lucid from their perspective, although it might be perfectly sound reasoning given my background and lack of expertise in that area.
The definition of a beneficial mutation is simply one that increases the fitness (reproductive success) of the organism in a particular environment. For example, a single base-pair mutation was recently discovered which allow single-celled algae to grow as multicellular sheets.
In some environments, this would be a harmful mutation. Algae rely on a high surface-to-volume ratio to exchange gases and with the environment. Growing as multicellular cuts down on the surface to volume ratio of the individual algae, and also tethers the algae, making it less mobile.
However, in the environment in which these researchers who discovered this mutation were studying the algae, there were predatory amoebas (I think - some predatory protozoan anyway). So in this particular environment, growing as multicellular offered a huge advantage. The amoebas were unable to successfully phagocytose the algae growing as a sheet, and consequently the algae continued to grow as sheets in this environment. (that is to say that the beneficial mutation was heritable).
The concept then would be that the definition of a harmful mutation is highly contingent on the environment. The environment is dynamic.
As one would expect, organisms that live in extremely dynamic environments (the most extreme example being viruses) have very high mutation rates. Or rather, organisms who didn't produce offspring with high mutation rates and a lot of variation in a dynamic environment were not able to adapt to the environment and we do not see their descendants today. We only see the minority survivors. That doesn't mean they are perfect - it just means that they are good enough to fill a niche, and exploit the resources available to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 15, 2017 20:58:33 GMT -5
I might offer that although it may seem that you are speaking sense, to a scientist in the field the best way to have a conversation in this regard and in this format would be for you to do some serious reading in the subject. There are a whole host of resources which are free by which you can learn the fundamentals. It would be akin to me trying to refute the concept of binary code to a computer scientist. The best argument I may have is unlikely to be remotely lucid from their perspective, although it might be perfectly sound reasoning given my background and lack of expertise in that area. The definition of a beneficial mutation is simply one that increases the fitness (reproductive success) of the organism in a particular environment. For example, a single base-pair mutation was recently discovered which allow single-celled algae to grow as multicellular sheets. In some environments, this would be a harmful mutation. Algae rely on a high surface-to-volume ratio to exchange gases and with the environment. Growing as multicellular cuts down on the surface to volume ratio of the individual algae, and also tethers the algae, making it less mobile. However, in the environment in which these researchers who discovered this mutation were studying the algae, there were predatory amoebas (I think - some predatory protozoan anyway). So in this particular environment, growing as multicellular offered a huge advantage. The amoebas were unable to successfully phagocytose the algae growing as a sheet, and consequently the algae continued to grow as sheets in this environment. (that is to say that the beneficial mutation was heritable). The concept then would be that the definition of a harmful mutation is highly contingent on the environment. The environment is dynamic. As one would expect, organisms that live in extremely dynamic environments (the most extreme example being viruses) have very high mutation rates. Or rather, organisms who didn't produce offspring with high mutation rates and a lot of variation in a dynamic environment were not able to adapt to the environment and we do not see their descendants today. We only see the minority survivors. That doesn't mean they are perfect - it just means that they are good enough to fill a niche, and exploit the resources available to them.
Thank you, ipsedixit! |
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Aug 15, 2017 22:38:47 GMT -5
Example: Fruit fly There was a mutation that gave some fruit flys , 4 wings. It wasn't beneficial, and thus it didn't produce any like kinds If you found this in a fossil record, there is no way of knowing What became of the " mutation " , but by hands on observation, we See they couldn't benefit by such a structure. ✌️ Humans are born with lots of things that are not beneficial to them or their survival. We see that all the time. Those who die before reproducing don't pass on their gene pool. Bottom line, this world was not made for us. We are the outcome of our world, it's climate etc. If we can't keep up with the change we will die too. That's the point. Fossilized bones offer no concrete evidence , it's only circumstantial evidence that you are aware , can be interpreted many many ways!!! Bottom line, you are right, eventually science will understand that their "evolution " story changes and replace with life being dictated by the Author of DNA instructions . I know you won't like that, but please don't bury your talents just because you don't understand the Author, or some other silly reason, you do know that life is a wonderful gift!!👍👍 |
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Aug 15, 2017 22:43:08 GMT -5
I might offer that although it may seem that you are speaking sense, to a scientist in the field the best way to have a conversation in this regard and in this format would be for you to do some serious reading in the subject. There are a whole host of resources which are free by which you can learn the fundamentals. It would be akin to me trying to refute the concept of binary code to a computer scientist. The best argument I may have is unlikely to be remotely lucid from their perspective, although it might be perfectly sound reasoning given my background and lack of expertise in that area. The definition of a beneficial mutation is simply one that increases the fitness (reproductive success) of the organism in a particular environment. For example, a single base-pair mutation was recently discovered which allow single-celled algae to grow as multicellular sheets. In some environments, this would be a harmful mutation. Algae rely on a high surface-to-volume ratio to exchange gases and with the environment. Growing as multicellular cuts down on the surface to volume ratio of the individual algae, and also tethers the algae, making it less mobile. However, in the environment in which these researchers who discovered this mutation were studying the algae, there were predatory amoebas (I think - some predatory protozoan anyway). So in this particular environment, growing as multicellular offered a huge advantage. The amoebas were unable to successfully phagocytose the algae growing as a sheet, and consequently the algae continued to grow as sheets in this environment. (that is to say that the beneficial mutation was heritable). The concept then would be that the definition of a harmful mutation is highly contingent on the environment. The environment is dynamic. As one would expect, organisms that live in extremely dynamic environments (the most extreme example being viruses) have very high mutation rates. Or rather, organisms who didn't produce offspring with high mutation rates and a lot of variation in a dynamic environment were not able to adapt to the environment and we do not see their descendants today. We only see the minority survivors. That doesn't mean they are perfect - it just means that they are good enough to fill a niche, and exploit the resources available to them. It does make some interesting reading, much like astrology offers, yet no proof. Bottom line: those that survive, just happen to be in the right place at the right time!! I have proof for this, ya know!😉✌️ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 0:04:15 GMT -5
That's actually one legitimate way to view it.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 16, 2017 14:13:34 GMT -5
Humans are born with lots of things that are not beneficial to them or their survival. We see that all the time. Those who die before reproducing don't pass on their gene pool. Bottom line, this world was not made for us. We are the outcome of our world, it's climate etc. If we can't keep up with the change we will die too. That's the point. Fossilized bones offer no concrete evidence , it's only circumstantial evidence that you are aware , can be interpreted many many ways!!! Bottom line, you are right, eventually science will understand that their "evolution " story changes and replace with life being dictated by the Author of DNA instructions . I know you won't like that, but please don't bury your talents just because you don't understand the Author, or some other silly reason, you do know that life is a wonderful gift!!👍👍 In what way is a fossilized bone only circumstantial evidence? They exist. They may or may not have reproduced. They died and the conditions were right for their fossilization. That's it. I once believed in the Christian God. I no longer believe that god exists or any other god for that matter. If one does, they are more than welcome to show themselves to me and convince me that they are real. I'm open minded about that. So far none have taken me up on my offer of having a chat. Until that happens, I will stick to physical evidence being the explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by P Roof on Aug 17, 2017 23:04:05 GMT -5
It does look like a nice place to step back and consider
I will agree that if using discoveries as building blocks
toward more discussion, it may be productive reasoning
It seems for all we learn? , we find that it is very hard
to reproduce the chain of events that really did happen, imo
I love to read about the people / scientists that are studying
to find how DNA works, it really is over my head, but
I still am enjoying the research that is just beginning
to grasp how this operates and how it communicates within and without its
small existence, building up and tearing down....👍
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 18, 2017 14:09:21 GMT -5
It does look like a nice place to step back and consider I will agree that if using discoveries as building blocks toward more discussion, it may be productive reasoning It seems for all we learn? , we find that it is very hard to reproduce the chain of events that really did happen, imo I love to read about the people / scientists that are studying to find how DNA works, it really is over my head, but I still am enjoying the research that is just beginning to grasp how this operates and how it communicates within and without its small existence, building up and tearing down....👍 I love to read about the new discoveries and many times I don't understand the implications of something so I have to continue researching until I do figure it out. I love science, physics in particular. Quantum physics amazes me and I don't understand it like I wish I could. But it is fascinating reading. Happy reading! |
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Aug 31, 2017 18:22:19 GMT -5
Is it not "reasonable"/ logical that the
Author of the "never failing/ unforgiving(?) "
Laws of nature , would consider the laws of
Human relationships to be similarly binding?
Perhaps this is a mistaken concept??
Do you think a reasonable person would
Be more content in a world that studied
"Scientific suggestions ". ?? ( instead of scientific laws??)
Or that : suggested rights would replace the "bill of rights"
You must be kidding? To think that God should have a
List of the "Ten Suggestions " instead of
Laws with REAL consequences!!!
Hmmm😉✌️
|
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Aug 31, 2017 23:04:54 GMT -5
The Old Testament, a historical account of and for
the Hebrew people, written in their own "tongue "
You might enjoy reading this , as it pertains to Our Creator 's
attempt to share His existence with a purpose to
have an eternal day in a perfect and fruitful situation
a place of no regretting choices..,
the key is to not do anything that would cause regretting, to you air those you live with, etc
Briefly the OT, is the prelude to the NT, as the OT is
In all ways directing us to the perfect life of our creators son.
Having a prophesied son , reasonably confirms the validity that Our Creator is real, AS real as His own so is also real!
Then there is no question to reasonable people that the prophesy was
fulfilled, and the words that His son spoke, were as words from Our Creator (himself).
Then it is reasonable that we should take great care
In reasoning out out personal convictions regarding
this revelation.,.,,
✌️
|
|
|
|
Post by Editted by on Sept 3, 2017 12:57:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by De scribe on Sept 3, 2017 13:02:59 GMT -5
what is the objective of unbelievers who improperly
de- scribe our Creator?? Huh??? What's the point??
✌️✌️🙄
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 4, 2017 13:20:51 GMT -5
Truth?
|
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Sept 4, 2017 15:42:01 GMT -5
So you improperly de-scribe the Creator, because you don't believe the biblical account ? But do YOU believe you are telling the truth? You want our Creator to be like some sort of "SantaClaus" , that is lying..... Do you think it's healthy for small children to believe lies?? |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 5, 2017 12:44:43 GMT -5
So you improperly de-scribe the Creator, because you don't believe the biblical account ? But do YOU believe you are telling the truth? You want our Creator to be like some sort of "SantaClaus" , that is lying..... Do you think it's healthy for small children to believe lies?? No I don't believe in the biblical account and I don't think it's healthy for small children to be indoctrinated in it's inaccuracies and improbabilities. I need evidence and so far there is no evidence that there is a god or santa claus. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 5, 2017 12:59:17 GMT -5
what is the objective of unbelievers who improperly de- scribe our Creator?? Huh??? What's the point?? ✌️✌️🙄 People have asked a number of times for theists to provide a description of their god without success. Care to give it a try? List all the attributes. |
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Sept 5, 2017 13:07:47 GMT -5
So you improperly de-scribe the Creator, because you don't believe the biblical account ? But do YOU believe you are telling the truth? You want our Creator to be like some sort of "SantaClaus" , that is lying..... Do you think it's healthy for small children to believe lies?? No I don't believe in the biblical account and I don't think it's healthy for small children to be indoctrinated in it's inaccuracies and improbabilities. I need evidence and so far there is no evidence that there is a god or santa claus. The probability of our Creator, creating our universe Is IMO , 100%. , there is ample evidence if you are well read in the sciences. ✌️✌️😉 |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 5, 2017 13:15:09 GMT -5
No I don't believe in the biblical account and I don't think it's healthy for small children to be indoctrinated in it's inaccuracies and improbabilities. I need evidence and so far there is no evidence that there is a god or santa claus. The probability of our Creator, creating our universe Is IMO , 100%. , there is ample evidence if you are well read in the sciences. ✌️✌️😉 Explain how science gives evidence of gods. Does science prove that Zeus and Thor and the thousands of other gods man has made up, really exist? |
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Sept 5, 2017 13:16:15 GMT -5
what is the objective of unbelievers who improperly de- scribe our Creator?? Huh??? What's the point?? ✌️✌️🙄 People have asked a number of times for theists to provide a description of their god without success. Care to give it a try? List all the attributes. First attribute, ( my Creator, created me! , isn't that a wonderful reason to make Him my "G(g)od". do please research the correct usage in capitalizing "god " And again, could you explain who created you? , thanks in advance! ✌️✌️ |
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Sept 5, 2017 13:22:18 GMT -5
The probability of our Creator, creating our universe Is IMO , 100%. , there is ample evidence if you are well read in the sciences. ✌️✌️😉 Explain how science gives evidence of gods. Does science prove that Zeus and Thor and the thousands of other gods man has made up, really exist? Are you well read up on history of the greek myth about "zeus " List your sources, and I'll compare them to the true history of the "religion of rebellion" that was started by Babylon and false religions! ✌️✌️✌️ |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 5, 2017 13:42:38 GMT -5
Explain how science gives evidence of gods. Does science prove that Zeus and Thor and the thousands of other gods man has made up, really exist? Are you well read up on history of the greek myth about "zeus " List your sources, and I'll compare them to the true history of the "religion of rebellion" that was started by Babylon and false religions! ✌️✌️✌️ The only source you have for the christian god is the bible and Jewish sacred books. You would have no more evidence for Yahweh than I would for Thor or Zeus. |
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Sept 5, 2017 17:25:21 GMT -5
Are you well read up on history of the greek myth about "zeus " List your sources, and I'll compare them to the true history of the "religion of rebellion" that was started by Babylon and false religions! ✌️✌️✌️ The only source you have for the christian god is the bible and Jewish sacred books. You would have no more evidence for Yahweh than I would for Thor or Zeus. Just wondered what YOUR source is. I'm not Hebrew, so please translate names to English , thanks I will post a few sources for the humans that rebelled against (Religion).... of course you are aware that the word re-lig-ion is from ancient Latin? Lig is (of God) .... Re is ( to return) If you rebel from this, you create a "falsity" , as you are not returning |
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 5, 2017 19:56:40 GMT -5
The only source you have for the christian god is the bible and Jewish sacred books. You would have no more evidence for Yahweh than I would for Thor or Zeus. Just wondered what YOUR source is. I'm not Hebrew, so please translate names to English , thanks Try entering the word 'Yahweh' into Google. I'll hazard a guess that you haven't studied much Latin. This via Google:  Do you understand how you might have a credibility problem at this point?! |
|
😉😉✌️👍👍
