Flaws in Evolution

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
Mastriani
Recognized Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:08 pm
Christian: No
Location: In the midst of the primordial redneck, uncultured abyss
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

#226

Post by Mastriani » Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:40 am

Bgood asked:
For instance, was Adam black, white or asian?
Uhhh, wow. That is a question I have never entertained :!: :!: :!:

Pre-Semitic?
"A woman, once educated, is man's superior."
Socrates

"In taking no action, all under heaven is accomplished"
Lao tse

User avatar
bizzt
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1654
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:11 pm
Christian: No
Location: Calgary
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#227

Post by bizzt » Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:24 pm

Mastriani wrote:Bgood asked:
For instance, was Adam black, white or asian?
Uhhh, wow. That is a question I have never entertained :!: :!: :!:

Pre-Semitic?
Who said their were even Colours back then?

Zenith
Established Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:54 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#228

Post by Zenith » Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:26 pm

bizzt wrote:
Mastriani wrote:Bgood asked:
For instance, was Adam black, white or asian?
Uhhh, wow. That is a question I have never entertained :!: :!: :!:

Pre-Semitic?
Who said their were even Colours back then?
there have been a lot of genetic studies showing that the first modern men were african, and had dark skin. they have certainly been around for at least as long as 'uncolored' people, in fact there is much support saying that blacks were around before any other types of skin color.

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#229

Post by Jbuza » Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:05 pm

Mastriani wrote:
Jbuza wrote:
sandy_mcd wrote:
Jbuza wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Does sexual reproduction ensure that babies resemble their great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents?
Yes that is the point.
How can this possibly be the point of sexual reproduction ? Asexual reproduction, which takes place mostly in plants and simple animals, is a much better method for ensuring that offspring resemble parent. Please explain how sexual reproduction, which involves mixing split up genetic material from multiple individuals, is better than asexual reproduction at having babies resemble forbears.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/ency ... 30820.html
Asexual reproduction is the simplest form of reproduction, occurring in many simple plants and animals. Binary fission, shown here occurring in an amoeba, is one of a number of asexual reproduction processes.
Examples of asexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction is the simplest form of reproduction, occurring in many plants and simple animals. Strawberry plants can reproduce by sending out runners; onion plants form bulbs; and potato plants form tubers. Amoebas divide into two (binary fission) and hydra form new hydra by budding. The offspring are always genetically identical to the parent.
OK. Would you also have me explain why rocks don't sink in water?

I never made the claim that sexual reproduction shows more stability than asexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction ensures that the offspring will recombine stable information.
Concerning everything I have read on the asexual/sexual reproduction that is entirely incorrect.

Asexual reproduction ensures exact copies. Which means if there is a gene mutation that causes a member of the species to perish, it will certainly mean that line becomes extinct.

Sexual reproduction does not create exact copies, otherwise, you would not be discernable from your father or brother. It ensures that if a certain genetic mutation occurs to the detriment of the species, by combining with another mate, that mutation can be "weeded" out, thus ensuring the survival of the species.
Can you point to the exact statement's that you say are incorrect and that this demonstrates the error, because I don't remember anyone claiming that Children are exact copies of their parents. IF I did see that I would agree with you completely.

IT is clear from observations that individuals make up gene pools of sexually reproduced organisms. It is clear from the similarities amongst the individuals within a gene pool that some of the information is incredibly stable. And stable across generations.

Zenith
Established Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:54 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#230

Post by Zenith » Thu Jan 12, 2006 5:36 am

Jbuza wrote:IT is clear from observations that individuals make up gene pools of sexually reproduced organisms. It is clear from the similarities amongst the individuals within a gene pool that some of the information is incredibly stable. And stable across generations.
all the 'information' (the order of pairs--G,C;T,A--that make up a DNA strand) is basically the same from generation to generation. what happens is, through meiosis, genes are recombined and the order gets rearranged. also, mutations occur in the genes which can add, subtract, or change a certain set, or few sets, of bases in DNA. so pieces of DNA are rearranged, and within those pieces, parts are changed. so yes, most of the information is stable, but it is still rearranged.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#231

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:15 am

Jbuza wrote: Can you point to the exact statement's that you say are incorrect and that this demonstrates the error, because I don't remember anyone claiming that Children are exact copies of their parents. IF I did see that I would agree with you completely.

IT is clear from observations that individuals make up gene pools of sexually reproduced organisms. It is clear from the similarities amongst the individuals within a gene pool that some of the information is incredibly stable. And stable across generations.
What is stable is viable life.
Show how a specific trait is stable.

But the question is why is the information stable?

Is a population stable because of the stability inherent in DNA or because the population is large enough to ensure healthy individuals.

It's not the DNA because isolated populations don't show this stability.

What is the meaning of healthy outside of the context of environment?

And you say some of the information is stable. What information is this that you refer to?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#232

Post by Jbuza » Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:29 am

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Show how a specific trait is stable.
Well all the human's I have ever seen and skeletons of some I heven't have some traits in common. I will not list them they are obvious. These traits are vry stable and appear to be resistant to change.
Bgood wrote: It's not the DNA because isolated populations don't show this stability.
really care to demonstrate this
Bgood wrote: And you say some of the information is stable. What information is this that you refer to?
The information that causes humans to remain stable as a species.

User avatar
bizzt
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1654
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:11 pm
Christian: No
Location: Calgary
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#233

Post by bizzt » Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:07 am

Zenith wrote:
bizzt wrote:
Mastriani wrote:Bgood asked:
For instance, was Adam black, white or asian?
Uhhh, wow. That is a question I have never entertained :!: :!: :!:

Pre-Semitic?
Who said their were even Colours back then?
there have been a lot of genetic studies showing that the first modern men were african, and had dark skin. they have certainly been around for at least as long as 'uncolored' people, in fact there is much support saying that blacks were around before any other types of skin color.
How can one go about to Prove this. Do we have Skin or some kind of DNA from the Bones we collected? What is this Much Support that you speak of?

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#234

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:14 am

bizzt wrote:How can one go about to Prove this. Do we have Skin or some kind of DNA from the Bones we collected? What is this Much Support that you speak of?
The original point is that traits have changed over time. Since obviously Adam cannot be rainbow colored.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
bizzt
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1654
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:11 pm
Christian: No
Location: Calgary
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#235

Post by bizzt » Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:18 am

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
bizzt wrote:How can one go about to Prove this. Do we have Skin or some kind of DNA from the Bones we collected? What is this Much Support that you speak of?
The original point is that traits have changed over time. Since obviously Adam cannot be rainbow colored.
Well we don't know that :wink:

Traits in Skin however are easy to change over time! The Environment Contribute to this!

Mystical
Valued Member
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:51 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#236

Post by Mystical » Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:39 am

Who brought humans into this discussion? We are irrelevant to it. There are no different species of humans; just on species: humans. So, humans in a discussion of evolution is pointless. Two other things: human DNA is incredibly stable. There is virtually no difference between different races in different parts of the world, or family members and strangers. Also, on the skin color issue: traits have not changed over time. Blacks bear white children commonly and whites/hispanics bear black and white and "rainbow" colored children quite commonly. So, I ask again, who brought humans into this discussion?
As kids we were all told in kindergarten that when a frog becomes a prince, that is a fairy tale. But when I was in high school and college, they told us that when a frog becomes a prince, that is science! --Mark Cahill (One Heartbeat Away)

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#237

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:45 am

Jbuza wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Show how a specific trait is stable.
Well all the human's I have ever seen and skeletons of some I heven't have some traits in common. I will not list them they are obvious. These traits are vry stable and appear to be resistant to change.
Traits in common yes, however there is variability among these traits.
Jbuza wrote:
Bgood wrote: It's not the DNA because isolated populations don't show this stability.
really care to demonstrate this
Take the isolated wolf populations from a previous link. This population had congenital spinal chord defects.
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/pdf_files ... rt2005.pdf
Jbuza wrote:
Bgood wrote: And you say some of the information is stable. What information is this that you refer to?
The information that causes humans to remain stable as a species.
What traits are these specifically?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#238

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:13 am

Mystical wrote:Who brought humans into this discussion? We are irrelevant to it. There are no different species of humans; just on species: humans.
Variability is what evolution is supposed to work on.
Mystical wrote:So, humans in a discussion of evolution is pointless. Two other things: human DNA is incredibly stable. There is virtually no difference between different races in different parts of the world, or family members and strangers.
The comparative differences between and family members is less than that of strangers. When looking at overall genome however there is very little differences. As you can see a few small changes leads to all the variety in the human race.
Mystical wrote:Also, on the skin color issue: traits have not changed over time. Blacks bear white children commonly and whites/hispanics bear black and white and "rainbow" colored children quite commonly. So, I ask again, who brought humans into this discussion?
It may happen on occation, but you make it seem as if it occurs all the time.
Because of this we should stop asking questions?
Why are there homogeneous populations then?
What caused those instances you refered to above?
Does genetics determine how we look?
And if so where did all these traits come from?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Mystical
Valued Member
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:51 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#239

Post by Mystical » Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:51 am

Variability is what evolution is supposed to work on.
Anthropomorphizing again? I don't think evolution is working on anything. This thread was criticizing macroevolution. In that case, humans have nothing to do with this discussion.
The differences between family members is less than that of strangers.
Quite strangely, it is the other way around.
As you can see a few small changes leads to all the variety in the human race.
As I can see, there is only one human species. Doesn't say much for evolution. Says alot about it...
It may happen on occation...
Happens enough.
Because of this we should stop asking questions?
Umm, no, why would you do that?
Why...What...Does...And...
Wow! Good questions! I don't know anyone who's ever asked those? :roll: BGood, I sure hope you find the answers 'cause you're really spending alot of time on this.
As kids we were all told in kindergarten that when a frog becomes a prince, that is a fairy tale. But when I was in high school and college, they told us that when a frog becomes a prince, that is science! --Mark Cahill (One Heartbeat Away)

Zenith
Established Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:54 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#240

Post by Zenith » Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:09 pm

Mystical wrote:Who brought humans into this discussion? We are irrelevant to it. There are no different species of humans; just on species: humans. So, humans in a discussion of evolution is pointless. Two other things: human DNA is incredibly stable. There is virtually no difference between different races in different parts of the world, or family members and strangers. Also, on the skin color issue: traits have not changed over time. Blacks bear white children commonly and whites/hispanics bear black and white and "rainbow" colored children quite commonly. So, I ask again, who brought humans into this discussion?
humans actually show evidence for evolution. have you ever met two humans that are exactly alike (not even twins are the same)? every human is different because their genes are different. there are more noticable differences in humans who have adapted through isolation in different parts of the world (race). we are similar to our parents because our genes are made of recombinations of their genes (causing a few minor mutations, most likely). so human dna is incredible stable because any tiny change in our dna is likely to cause a major change in our physical structure. and the human body has become very efficient as it is. but changes still occur. recombination causes the differences between father and son, and it allows for some dormant genes to become active in the next generation (as shown by genes for hair loss and some susceptability to certain diseases).

and i would like to see the study that shows black 'commonly' bear white children, unless you mean that a black woman commonly has sex with a white man and has a white child. white children born to black parents may happen very rarely, but in fact that supports evolution, as how do you think the first white people came to be? its because of a mutation.

Post Reply