Creation vs. Evolution

[sheck33]

God did in Genesis.

A claim which naturally totally contradicts all known scientific facts.

Once again, 'god did it' is not an explanation.

 

[coachpill]

Scientific works do not get published in new scientist. Rather, it features articles written largely by their in-house staff, about discoveries published elsewhere.

So, at best, it was a quote of Carrol's.

No, I called you a liar before you posted that link - it's all in the thread, for anyone to see...

You mean aside from all those comments about "disproven science" being kept in texts...

For example:
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/3622392-post5311.html

You haven't. But you did complain that science texts teach the Urey-Miller experiment "as fact", and complain that it represents teaching of "disproven science". You then listed a series of books that taught Miller.

I simply pointed out that in my copy of one of those texts, Miller was taught as the first experiment in abiogenesis research. This is the exact opposite of your claim - they were not treating it as fact, but rather using it as a historical example of how abiogenesis research formed. Hence the question about whether you think the historical progress should be removed, as that is what was in the text book you
were critisizing...

The claim made was that Gould treated abiogenesis and evolution as the same thing. Clearly, he does not, as he talked about one giving rise to the other. Are you sure you're a teacher - your reading comprehension is a little off...

Bryan

Yes, it was a quote by Carroll.

Yes, you called me a liar before I posted the link...however in an earlier post I alluded to how talk.origins says the of the mutations with significant effect, most are harmful. And, yes, it is all in the thread for you to go read again.

Click your own link to the scubaboard forum above and it will clearly show that I did not do the complaining about the Miller experiment. That is now twice that you have mistaken me for someone else.

And again, clearly, as I have already told you, I'm going to take your word for it that Gould believes what you say he believes. However, in regards to the interview you were dead wrong.

That's multiple times someone has mentioned reading comprehension...and it hasn't been a lack on my part, that's for sure. You can't even tell the difference between "coachpill" and "CE4Jesus." They do share one letter, though, so I could see where you might mess it up.

 

[gary-ramey]

Thanx for proving that you are so closed minded about things that you'll not bother to check things up, even when the exact citation is provided for you. Gould is adamant, in many of his works, that they two are completely separate thoeries, phenomena, and areas of science. He spends a whole chapter in "Rock of Ages" criticizing creationists for failing to differentiate the two.

That criticism, BTW, would be directed at people like yourself...

So he changed his mind at some point before the interview because there was no mistaking his "belief' when ask point blank. I find it remarkable that you would go to such lengths to prove he didn't say what he actually did say. Then, when called on it, you point to his earlier works.

 

[gary-ramey]

Maybe you should have looked up all of those papers I posted the first time, as the vast majority were naturally occurring mutations in mammalian species.

Unless, of course, you think scientists are going out and feeding every animal, human, plant, protazoan, fungi, bacteria, and archeans on this planet mutagens immediately before they reproduce, while at the same time, maintaining the entirety of the earths biosphere to be favorable to those mutation...

Of course, neither of your replies are a surprise to me - you're just using the exact same tactic as all the other creationsits - ignoring inconvenient facts, even when they (and the relevant citations) are spoon fed to you...

I've already admitted I'm not a biologist and therefore "ignorant" in regard to some issues. I was speaking more about albinoism, discoloration, size, and large scale observable deformities etc. Usually animals with deficiencies like these don't reach sexual maturity due to survival of the fittest. Bottom line, I've observed nature all my life and have read about adaptations and small mutations. Still, I've yet to see a large genetic mutation on anything that benefitted the animal. Two heads still aren't better than one.

 

[Soggy]

Fluid flow is driven by a pressure differential.

On a large scale, the ocean is driven by temperature and salinity differentials. There's something called the Great Ocean Conveyer. It's a deep ocean, very slow process that takes every molecule of water down to the deepest depths and back up to the surface on the other side of the planet.

Thermohaline circulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I recally, historically, changes in this conveyor belt has been attributed to causing some of the ice ages. The current concern is that the fresh water melting from the glaciers is causing areas of low salinity in the ocean and is slowing the conveyor. Yay, global warming.

 

[Thalassamania]

No. It speaks to the qualifications/skill/knowledge in science of the involved parties.


LOL, I'll give it to you that scientists are usually better scientists than non-scientists.

Is it a point worth making though? Here are our science show-down matches and my predicted outcomes...

athiest scientist vs religious non-scientist...winner, athiest scientist.
religious scientist vs athiest non-scientist...winner religous scientist
athiest scientist vs athiest non-scientist...winner ahiest scientist
religous scientist vs religious non-scientist...winner religious scientist.

Your question seems aimed at making it a religion vs no religion question which may not demonstrate clear thinking. I think religious/non-religious works looks to be a "don't care" attribute with the telling attribute being scientist/non-scientist.

A more interesting question would be how do religious scientists fare compared to non-religious scientists. Personally I don't know but Newton and Pasteur did ok.

You are ducking the question. What I asked for was a single example where science challenged religionists' dogma like Galileo did and where, in the end, unlike the Galileo example, the religionists' dogma turned out to be the real and accepted answer in the end. Come on, just one little example, you've two thousand years in which to find one teeny shred of religionist creditably.

Fluid flow is driven by a pressure differential.

And what is it that you think creates the pressure differential? A god? A black hole? Chocolate bars? No ... it's density differences between water masses.

 

[gary-ramey]

You are lieing:
Are Mutations Harmful?

To quote:
Q: Doesn't evolution depend on mutations and aren't most mutations harmful?

A: No. Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful.
That's the short answer. The long answer is that mutations can be neutral (neither helpful nor harmful), strictly harmful, strictly helpful, or (and this is important) whether they are harmful or helpful depends on the environment. Most mutations are either neutral or their effect depends on the environment. Let's look at an example of a mutation which may be harmful or helpful, depending upon circumstances.

Or from the same article toward the end.

"What is the net result," you may ask. Some mutations are fatal or very bad. These mutations get eliminated immediately. Some are silent and don't count. Sometimes a mutation is definitely advantageous; this is rare but it does happen. Almost all mutations which aren't silent and which aren't eliminated immediately are neither completely advantageous nor deleterious. The mutation produces a slightly different protein, and the cell and the living organism work slightly differently. Whether the mutation is helpful or harmful depends on the environment; it could be either.

You're right someone is lying...or using selective quote mining.

 

[Soggy]

You're right someone is lying...or using selective quote mining.

What you quoted says that "SOME" mutations are fatal. This is true. But MOST are not. Sheesh, your reading comprehension is horrendous.

What part of this don't you understand?

Almost all mutations which aren't silent and which aren't eliminated immediately are neither completely advantageous nor deleterious.

That's from what YOU just quoted.

 

[Thalassamania]

Granted the Bees fly. But the ants do swarm. Furthermore, 50 years and 65 million are huge...in case you didn't notice. So if you make an observation without an exhaustive study you now have a complete lack of understanding. ... got it. BTW, it was an observation, followed by a question to you. You don't seem to have a good answer. I've drawn preliminary conclusions like most normal people do, but would consider any rational explanation.

Your assumption (remember, hell hath no fury as an unwarranted ASSumption) presupposes a steady state. With an environment (and for that matter almost all of the resources that define the multi-dimensional hyper-volume of the organism's niche) that is continuously in flux, organisms will, of course, move to the extent that the energy they invest in moving is pays off. As long as that is true and they continue to posses a advantage over previously (currently) resident organisms, they'll expand their range. That's a non-preliminary conclusion that most normal grade schoolers I know could share with you "normal people."

 

[MikeFerrara]

Mike, why dont you just admit that creationists can not provide the example asked for?

I thought I did that with a fairly clear explanation that the scientific prowis of any scientist should generally be greather than the scientific prowis of a non-scientist.

One more time...the determining factor is knowledge of science NOT the presence or absense of religion.

I won't play because Thal seems to want to make the issue religion vs science, when the issue should be science vs science.