Religon

[Xogede]

Första frågan: Han klarar sig bättre om han är bättre anpassad och har då större chans att föröka sig och därmed ökar sannolikheten att han för vidare sitt genetiska material.

Andra: Väldigt väldigt väldigt väldigt liten chans, och det vet du som sagt. Men vi pratar om störra tidsperioder, inte århundraden,

1. Varför har han större chans att föröka sig? Honorna kan ju inte direkt veta att han är bäst anpassad när förändringarna är så små.

2. Aaah... sim-salabim "Lång tid". Musik i mina öron. Men hursomhelst.

Just det, chanserna är "Väldigt väldigt väldigt väldigt" små. Problemet är att de som har en negativ mutation (negativa mutationer utgör, som sagt, den absoluta majoriteten av alla mutationer) också har en nästan likadan chans att föra sina gener vidare, och därmed försämra för hela flocken. Men det riktiga problemet kommer när alla faktorer multipliceras, då kommer vi nämligen till det som jag sa redan i "Hönan eller ägget"-tråden: Chansen är så liten att skulle behövas mycket längre tid än de futtiga 3 miljarder år som ni förespråkar.

[skribb]

Som nämnts redan på första sidan, så är Jesus' existens historiskt bevisad enligt kriteriet för historiska bevis: att ett påstående ska finnas med i två oberoende källor.

Ska läsa resten av tråden nu. EDIT: Nej tack. Efter allt deras snack om "Christ-psychosis" så kommer jag att spy innan jag har läst klart tråden.

Varför är det då just hans gener som lever vidare? Eller, om man formulerar frågan på ett annat sätt, hur stor är chansen att just hans och bara hans gener lever vidare när förändringarna är så små?

Jag förstår att utkonkurreringsprocessen sker över flera generationer. Men det är ju fortfarande utkonkurrering.

Jesus existens är inte bevisad nej.

Vad tråkigt att du inte vågar läsa en tråd som handlar om såna som dig.

Här kommer lite babbel i stil med Mikolans tidigare inlägg:

There are many transitional fossils form ancient times indicating a macroevolutionary transition from ancient to modern species/families and phyla:

1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).

8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).

9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).

10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).

11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).

2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.

3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).

5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).

The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).

2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004)

Also, since macroevolution takes an incredibly long term to occur on the more advanced biological level, it would be difficult to observe it in our current time frame.

Also, macroevolution HAS BEEN RECORDED AND OBSERVED in a skin culture during a lab test by NASA. Basically some of the human cells developed into ameboid-like organisms and began to take over the culture.

Microevolution can easily be observed on the bacterial level, all you need is a microscope and a lot of time.

Another proof we evolved is the appendix. It is a completely useless organ that is left over by some distant ancestor. Already we can see the appendix no longer being part of the gene pool, as there are now many recorded medical cases of children being born without appendices in Europe. I will post the source later if I can find it, but I personally know someone who was born without one so it is pretty much true to me.

To the person doing the intelligent design report: Disproving evolution would not prove creationism. It would just leave a vacuum. The only way intelligent design could be proven and supported by scientists is if one were to prove the existence of God by using evidence and the scientific method. Also, evolution says nothing concerning abiogenesis, so IDers are focuing on the wrong theory as well. If anything, the only theory that IDers need to disprove is spontaneous generation, which is besides the point. ID should focus on proving a creator, not disproving evolution as both theories are more unrelated that some would leave you to believe.

Another thing supporting evolution is the fact that no modern species are found in the prehistoric fossil record other than crocidiles and rodents. This suggests that MODERN humans and other modern species developed later.

Also, if anyone tries to use scripture against me, I will leave. The Bible is interpreted in many ways, and some of these verses that "disprove" evolution are entirely taken out of context. Let's keep evidence/ rebuttals solely in the secular realm, okay?

Lastly, before someone posts concerning irreducible complexity:

1. Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

* deletion of parts

* addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)

* change of function

* addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)

* gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied; irreducibility is no obstacle to its formation (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996).

2. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

3. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

4. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:

* The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.

* The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.

* In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).

* The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.

I would like to say one more thing, though: Is evolution as a whole undisputable? No. Is is plausible? Yes. So you are right in the technical sense, Aquinas.

With that, I leave you to interpret this evidence and rebut it however you please. I will not argue for or against evolution again on these message boards, as I am tired of repeating myself. All I ask to those who view evolution as widely disputed, is to go meet up with an evolutionary biologist or go to a science center/fossil repository with your arguments. If you think you have a disproof for evolution, posit it towards the enitre scientific community. It is very likely if you did disprove it you would recieve a Nobel Prize. There is no conspiracy amongst scientists to prove evolution, trust me on thsi guys. I talk with and meet up with many such people thanks to most of my family's job choices(Health and Biology)

1. 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.

2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:

* Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).

* Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).

* Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).

* A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).

* Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).

* In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).

Beneficial mutations DO occur. They are even occuring from one generation to another this very moment amongst us humans(see what I said about appendices).

Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 10:10 am Post subject:

Also, here is another list(covers metabolic pathways): http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html#metabolic

You can observe beneficial mutations a laboratory on the bacterial level. This means it CAN happen to some degree and their is evidence pointing towards it also happening in humans.

What we have in the evolution debate is two competing bodies of evidence that says two completely different things. But, if you follow the evidence to it's source, you will notice that some of this evidence has been delibrately misrepresented. Such is sometomes the case with creationist websites. One of the experiments I read on a creationist website(not answers in genesis) on carbon dating actually delibrately used the test to get a certain result rather dishonestly. Here: (wrong link, I'll find what I was talking about later)

Macroevolution is just microevolution in a much much much larger time frame.

Transitional Fossils are a good indicator, as well as the fact that no modern species are present in the prehistoric fossil record except primitive crocidiles and rodents. We would havefound modern fossils if evolution never occured and all modern lifeforms started in their respective forms.

Mutations can not be observed in nature due to the fact that it would be hard to watch every generation waiting for a mutation. It would take years to wait for the conditions to be right for such a happenstance. But the fact that it CAN happen proves that it is possible for it to occur in nature.

[Xogede]

Du med dina listor igen... ska läsa det där imorgon. Nu måste jag sova, tyvärr.

[Mikolan]

1. Varför har han större chans att föröka sig? Honorna kan ju inte direkt veta att han är bäst anpassad när förändringarna är så små.

2. Aaah... sim-salabim "Lång tid". Musik i mina öron. Men hursomhelst.

Just det, chanserna är "Väldigt väldigt väldigt väldigt" små. Problemet är att de som har en negativ mutation (negativa mutationer utgör, som sagt, den absoluta majoriteten av alla mutationer) också har en nästan likadan chans att föra sina gener vidare, och därmed försämra för hela flocken. Men det riktiga problemet kommer när alla faktorer multipliceras, då kommer vi nämligen till det som jag sa redan i "Hönan eller ägget"-tråden: Chansen är så liten att skulle behövas mycket längre tid än de futtiga 3 miljarder år som ni förespråkar.

Enkelt, han har större chans att överleva

Negativ mutation = mindre chans att överleva = mindre chans att få avkomma.

Och jorden är ju bara 10.000 år!.. eller?

Redigerad 31 maj, 2006 av Mikolan

[Patrik]

Varför har han större chans att föröka sig? Honorna kan ju inte direkt veta att han är bäst anpassad när förändringarna är så små.

Ett bra exempel är ju också elefanter.

Innan parningen utmanar honan hanen på en liten tävling.

Hinner hanen ifatt honan får denna para sig.

Med andra ord, de bästa elefanterna får para sig.

[skribb]

Ett bra exempel är ju också elefanter.

Innan parningen utmanar honan hanen på en liten tävling.

Hinner hanen ifatt honan får denna para sig.

Med andra ord, de bästa elefanterna får para sig.

Ett ganska sakligt exempel får jag påstå.

[chiligr]

Den här tråden visar sig grymt andvändbar i mitt NO-projekt om evolutionen!

[spajdermän]

Måste bara säga en sak:

Gå ut å sätt er i de fina vädret. Sitt där å "ta in" naturen ett tag.

Allt de här fina kan bara inte ha kommit till av en slump. Nån måste ha gjort de med mening.

Denna någon är Gud...

[The Dude]

Måste bara säga en sak:

Gå ut å sätt er i de fina vädret. Sitt där å "ta in" naturen ett tag.

Allt de här fina kan bara inte ha kommit till av en slump. Nån måste ha gjort de med mening.

Denna någon är Gud...

Samma gud som lät det här hända!

Gillar du fortfarande honom lika mycket? Att tro på en skapande och styrande gud är en förnedring till alla som dog i koncentrationslägrena, och alla som lider här på Jorden. Ni dyrkar han som valde att detta skulle ske.

Oj sorry för om jag förstörde stämningen hihi. Jag njuter också av det fina vädret.

Redigerad 3 juni, 2006 av The Dude

[spajdermän]

Samma gud som lät det här hända!

Gillar du fortfarande honom lika mycket? Att tro på en skapande och styrande gud är en förnedring till alla som dog i koncentrationslägrena, och alla som lider här på Jorden. Ni dyrkar han som valde att detta skulle ske.

Oj sorry för om jag förstörde stämningen hihi. Jag njuter också av det fina vädret.

De va människan som gjorde de där. Inte Gud.

Sen finns de ju en ond sida oxå vettu

Den kallas Djävulen...

[Corleone]

De va människan som gjorde de där. Inte Gud.

Sen finns de ju en ond sida oxå vettu

Den kallas Djävulen...

"Vissa är onda. De är dumma, stygga, elaka.

Vissa är goda. De är fina, snälla, rättfärdiga.

De onda besitter djävulens ande, eller är utan tro. De goda frambärs av Gud och hans kärlekshand."

Skitsnack.

Redigerad 3 juni, 2006 av Corleone

[The Dude]

De va människan som gjorde de där. Inte Gud.

Sen finns de ju en ond sida oxå vettu

Den kallas Djävulen...

Är Djävulen mäktigare än Gud? Kunde Gud inte stoppa förintelsen? Det var ju lite svagt av honom.

[Umberto]

Samma gud som lät det här hända!

http://www.ostratorn.lund.se/gamla/gamla/F...zi/massgrav.jpg

Gillar du fortfarande honom lika mycket? Att tro på en skapande och styrande gud är en förnedring till alla som dog i koncentrationslägrena, och alla som lider här på Jorden. Ni dyrkar han som valde att detta skulle ske.

Oj sorry för om jag förstörde stämningen hihi. Jag njuter också av det fina vädret.

Jag förstår inte vad Ni vill få sagt med det där. Trots att man är kristen betyder det inte att man är någon sorts determinist. Människan har ju en fri vilja.

Vidare, förespråkar/förespråkade nazismen en relativt ateistisk världsbild. I vissa fall t.o.m. en rentav hednisk/ockult sådan.

Många av Nazitysklands ledare var uttalade ateister. Vissa historiker hävdar t.o.m. att Adolf själv var satanist...

[The Dude]

Jag förstår inte vad Ni vill få sagt med det där. Trots att man är kristen betyder det inte att man är någon sorts determinist. Människan har ju en fri vilja.

Vidare, förespråkar/förespråkade nazismen en relativt ateistisk världsbild. I vissa fall t.o.m. en rentav hednisk/ockult sådan.

Många av Nazitysklands ledare var uttalade ateister. Vissa historiker hävdar t.o.m. att Adolf själv var satanist...

Jag vill få sagt mitt hat mot den kristna guden. Det finns lika många varianter av kristendomen som det finns kristna, men jag syftar på de som tror att Gud bestämmer över människan för då är Gud skyldig till förintelsen.

[R2D2]

Samma gud som lät det här hända!

//bild

Gillar du fortfarande honom lika mycket? Att tro på en skapande och styrande gud är en förnedring till alla som dog i koncentrationslägrena, och alla som lider här på Jorden. Ni dyrkar han som valde att detta skulle ske.

Oj sorry för om jag förstörde stämningen hihi. Jag njuter också av det fina vädret.

Ska inte nämna något religiöst här, det får ni ta. Men "One Man's Junk is Another Man's Treasure".

[okka]

De va människan som gjorde de där. Inte Gud.

Sen finns de ju en ond sida oxå vettu

Den kallas Djävulen...

Jag slår mig lite sådär lätt på pannan och suckar: "usch, idioter!".

Så jäkla fin värld du tror på, spindelmanne. En maktkamp mellan två idioter varav den ena är aningen dummare än den andra.

Fiiint tänkt.

[Jacker]

*BUMP*

Xogede, har du gått igenom skribbs lista än?

[Cortez]

Även om det skulle finnas någon Gud, så ger han blanka fan i vad som finns på den här planeten.

[ULTIMA TURE]

Skribb, ska du inte översätta det till svenska, så vi svenskar förstår?

[skribb]

De flesta här kan engelska, dig ger jag blanka fan i.