It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolutionist and Creationist United

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
For the Evolutionist

If you believe in evolution as I do, then it is important you accept this in all terms and not just biological evolution. Evolution is much larger than DNA and Darwin. The concept of Evolution is simple, given many things and change, over time various and seperate things show up. This is true in biology, thus speciation. it is also true in culture, thus various languages, nations, and beliefs.

Creationism EVOLVED. Nature has determined through evolution that the belief in creationism is a valid thing. Many benefits can be seen, such as community, focused beliefs, and the ability to not spend time wrapped up in the complexity of nature and change. Creationist are often people of faith, which can have many benefits.

While many people may reject faith based beliefs, this matter little becuase nature and evolution do not reject them. Faith can drive people to help others or even fight for a culture's values. A devoute society is a strong one indeed, and evolution will reward this.

Logically, we must accept that creationism has evolved within society and exist to this day. And while we may not always see that reason, it is not up to us to judge if it is right...it is up to evolution.

For the Creationist

Faith is more powerful than any technology. Man can build a nuclear weapon, but only faith can tell us how to use it. There is no logic or science in killing, so it is faith in God, Faith in ourselves, and faith in a system of morals that guide us in our actions.

In this world it take people of faith and people of technology working together to make the things around us. Through logic, including the rejection of faith, we grow as people. Technology, science, and medicine often come from those that put logic above faith.

Because of this, we have evolution. A logical and complicated system by wich things change over time. Is that right? Why would it even matter if it is right or wrong? If you have Faith, then extend that to your fellow man. For those without faith can still be your brother. They can make medicines and help people with their views. The teaching of evolution does help those in the medical field. So instead of worrying about the accuracy of the concept of evolution, have faith in your fellow man.

After all, did God not create him as well?

Both Sides
We are not enemies. We are different. Both side are important to the world we live in and both side play a role. There is no logical reason to fight creationism, nor is there a reason not to have faith in logic. As long as both sides are there, are open to being learned, there is nothing to fear.

Evolution does not kill faith. And Faith does not rule out evolution.

If you look deep into the heart of people, and you look to God, you can see that logic and evolution play a role in this world of humans. If you deep into evolution and logic, you can understand why faith in creationsm exist. Both sides are right, but for different reasons.

Our future is not settling the argument...it is agreeing that both are true things from different places, both play a role, and in the end we as people are all that matter...whether we were created or evolved.




posted on May, 23 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Great post!


Many Christians utilize the "Genesis Gap Theory" to explain how evolution and creationism can co-exist. I am open to any interpretation that fits for me logically.

I think a lot of things were left out of the Bible purposely. It makes Christians study the Bible more. If you look intently and study the Bible as a whole, you can be surprised at what you'll find. I know I have been. The Bible is fascinating, and cannot be understood by simply reading it a few times.

Edit: fixed typo

[edit on 5/23/2006 by darkelf]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quest

For the Creationist

Faith is more powerful than any technology. Man can build a nuclear weapon, but only faith can tell us how to use it. There is no logic or science in killing, so it is faith in God, Faith in ourselves, and faith in a system of morals that guide us in our actions.


And nuclear weapons can kill faith.


In this world it take people of faith and people of technology working together to make the things around us. Through logic, including the rejection of faith, we grow as people. Technology, science, and medicine often come from those that put logic above faith.


No, religion is declining since the 15th century and the world has just gotten better since.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Benefits of faith?

Ah you must mean holy wars? Or burning the wicked witch's? Or the genocide's? Or hell, to many "benefits" to list. All I can say is thank effing god (haha, I made a funny!) that religion is declining. Atleast then we won't have people claiming to be "good" and then killing in the name of their god. God damn hypocrits. You can't take your benefits and shove em. I don't need no bloody holy wars or massacres or religous zealots.

Only benefit we need is some damn common sense, something religous people lack.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide


No, religion is declining since the 15th century and the world has just gotten better since.



Considering the majority of the species that have ever inhabited earth are now extinct, it seems that each and every facet of the planet is declining. If not for the human ability to reason, we'd likely be on the chopping block as well. These days the emotion driven do-gooders tend to blame us for all this but the reality is, this degredation was in motion long before we were. Its my personal opinion that anyone who claims to know for sure based on either of these theories, both of which are subject to much speculation, has closed their mind to new information. There are good pints on both sides like it or not but again my personal opinion, neither will be proved in the end in their purity.

Those of you who take the science as gospel and will hear no other argument are the worst. Most religion based theory is closed minded by its very nature but you who profess to arrive at a definet answer based on the very preliminary work thus far are going against the very scientific principle that brought you this far, to question the norm. Have we laerned nothing from history about this rash thinking. Scientists once thought the world flat. It took someone to question the obvious to discover the truth.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think either side should be squelched because at stake is losing either our confidence in modern science or ancient knowledge. Just remember that when you take any stance and present it as the truth regardless of the evidence againts it, you create your own religion and I think thats what we have here. Two sides both who think they have a better foundation for their belief and neither willing to compromise. The rational has gone, the reason has gone. Its just one religion against another.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Quest,

Nice try...but NO CIGAR FOR YOU!

Creationists have tried a multitude of convoluted attempts to associate their fantasy with science (evolution) possibly because many christians are not nearly so dumb as to actually believe biblical claims to be supportable. Therefore they realize that evolution is fact and since they are educated they wish to find some way to assimilate their religious beliefs with their version of reality. I do not object to this attempt but each published claim is subject to the reaction of others…hence my reaction to your post.

You will read ‘darkelf’s’ misuse of the term “theory”; just ignore anything written by someone who does not know the definition of common terms they misuse attempting to make their point.

That’s my story and I’m stickin to it.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   
there's always the perspective from islam regarding creationist and evolutionist.. if only we care..

--> www.harunyahya.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
Scientists once thought the world flat. It took someone to question the obvious to discover the truth.


Science is based on doubt. Religion on so called divine texts and dogma.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   
well i personally believe that in order to reach a certain conclusion.. u just gotta see to every side of the dice.. looking into every perspective. and thats what i did, i've the read the origin of species, the descent of man, the bible, the holy quran and even the stupid satanic verses or even the doctrines of the church of satan and whatever else there is..

it is now safe for me to say that i began to grasp the real issue and realize the happenings in this world (not everything) since that i am 'fully awake'.. to reach to a form of understanding.. as they say - the truth is out there.. u just have to look for it and not be deceived by it.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
..and what I am saying is that I do not believe that we know the truth just yet. I work at a university for 6 years and I came to know how researchers in any department came to their conclusions. Many variables began as assumed to arrive at hypothisis. After a while these assumed variables were accepted and used as fact. My point is that any scientific principle or theory is only as solid as the data used to substanciate it and I mean even the smallest of assumptions and many of you who have not worked in the field might be suprised to hear that assumed variables are used from time to time to satisfy an unknown in an equation and its accepted practice to arrive at a hypothisis. Thats why the term "if" is used in the equation. What we do not take with a grain of salt is that that term "if" means just that. If all these variables in the equation are as stated "then" our hypothisis is proven. That if can be as small as a questionable timeline or quantity of matter. The point is to know that there have been scientific principles in the past proven wrong by hard working people with better technology and we should never take such a hard stance on anything for no better reason that a hatred of religion. That wrong does not neccesarily make us right. Also, the defense of a theory against question smacks science in the face. As you said, science is the ability to question so I do question the work on eveolution. I question all the suppositions and demand more work before closing the book. If that pisses you all off and your unwilling to see this theory questioned due to your faith, then you have created your own religion.

Many times I have compared this to the enviro crowd who will not hear reason that some of the things they do are really detrimental to their cause because it just feels so right to defend it and they feel important doing it. Many times I think the emotion of feeling superior to others overtakes the rational of truth. Just my opinion and I could be wrong, could you?


(edited because I cannot type on this laptop)

[edit on 3-6-2006 by astrocreep]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sayswho
You will read ‘darkelf’s’ misuse of the term “theory”; just ignore anything written by someone who does not know the definition of common terms they misuse attempting to make their point.

That’s my story and I’m stickin to it.



Sourec
the•o•ry Pronunciation Key (th -r , thîr )
n. pl. the•o•ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.



Originally posted by darkelfMany Christians utilize the "Genesis Gap Theory" to explain how evolution and creationism can co-exist. I am open to any interpretation that fits for me logically

Please explain how the above statement is a misuse of the word theory. I include the definition of theory for your understanding. Too many people pick and choose from a list of given definitions to determine what a word may mean.

The Genesis Gap Theory is indeed a theory. It qualifies as a theory as it is unproven and is only an assumption or conjecture based on limited information and knowledge. It is a theory in that it is a belif held by many people to assist their understanding of how evolution and a Biblical creation story can co-exist. Whether or not you believe it does not make it not a theory. Please do not accuse another person of ignorance until you have all of the facts.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

As you said, science is the ability to question so I do question the work on eveolution. I question all the suppositions and demand more work before closing the book. If that pisses you all off and your unwilling to see this theory questioned due to your faith, then you have created your own religion.


Of course science could be wrong. Even scientists question evolution, but can they really find credible evidence denying it? no. So ToE is our best explanation until new discoveries will deepen the theory.
The amount of evidence supporting evolution since Darwin's book is overwhelming , and confirmed by modern science, just like modern satellites and measures confirn the theory of relativity.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Quest
First things first: "You have voted Quest for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month." I really appreciate the tone/style of your post here, very rare around here in my experience. Just take a look at some of the comments posted here to see my point... the 'skeptics' can be just as stubborn and infantile in their rhetoric as any hardcore creationist IMO.

*Note: I'll be editing some of your comments here for brevity's sake and not, intentionally, trying to change your arguments to make the debate easier, in the straw man sense. For the record I'm a Christian and re: the Creation I'm more in line with the old-earth interpretation of, eg, Reasons.org/Hugh Ross et al.



For the Evolutionist

This is true in biology, thus speciation. it is also true in culture, thus various languages, nations, and beliefs.


For me the argument here is over mechanism or the design -vs- chance argument and of course, again speaking for myself, (universal) common ancestry re: biology. So far as the rest, culture/language/beliefs, I can agree.




A devoute society is a strong one indeed, and evolution will reward this.

Logically, we must accept that creationism has evolved within society and exist to this day. And while we may not always see that reason, it is not up to us to judge if it is right...it is up to evolution.


I must say I like your take on this but, if I may, I'd ask for some clarification here re: the 'evolution' of creationism. My point is: Most people seem to think that creationists originally believed that the earth was young and then, as we developed our scientific understanding of the world, accepted (for some) that the earth was old and hence creationism 'evolved.' Is that an accurate representation of what you meant by the 'evolution of creationism?'

If so it's important to note that the YEC interpretation of Scripture is the more modern interpretation.... I believe (brain fart) it first came about in the 15th century (may be 17th... I can look that up if you wish.) The same can be said for the 'kinds' or the micro-vs-macro arguments also. St Augustine said, in the 5th century, "In the beginning were created only germs or causes of the forms of life which were afterwards to be developed in gradual course." So, as you can see, even (universal) common ancestry is an acceptable belief for Christians... even though, as I've stated, it's not my belief. It's my opinion that these arguments should be held in the area of debate over scientific interpretations and not Scriptural ones... I often worry how many non-believers have been turned away from Christianity because they think evolution and Scripture are mutually exclusive... they are not.




In this world it take people of faith and people of technology working together to make the things around us. Through logic, including the rejection of faith, we grow as people. Technology, science, and medicine often come from those that put logic above faith.


Disagree. Tech/science/medicine were 'fathered,' if you will, by (mostly) Christian creationists who had no problems squaring logic and Faith. I may be mis-reading you here though. Based on the majority of your post I don't get the impression you think that a rejection of Faith, through logic, is how we grow as a people. Please correct me here if I'm wrong... if I've accurately represented your position then let the debate begin.





Because of this, we have evolution. A logical and complicated system by wich things change over time. Is that right? Why would it even matter if it is right or wrong? If you have Faith, then extend that to your fellow man. For those without faith can still be your brother. They can make medicines and help people with their views. The teaching of evolution does help those in the medical field. So instead of worrying about the accuracy of the concept of evolution, have faith in your fellow man.

After all, did God not create him as well?


For the record: Evolution, whichever 'version' you like best, and there are several, is just as much a product of scientists of Faith as it is for the atheists or agnostics. Certainly debateable as to by what degree my statement is accurate but to say that atheists or agnostics are why we have science/logic is untrue. As I've said there's certainly room for debate here but, imho, to put the faithful on one side and the science/logic minded person on the other is unfair, and doesn't fit the facts of history (ancient or contemporary) imho. And yes, indeed, He did.




Evolution does not kill faith. And Faith does not rule out evolution.


100% agree. This is why I wasn't sure if I'd mis-represented your position above... Technically speaking, not only does evolution not kill faith, but it doesn't kill Scipture either. Ask any theistic evolutionist, which for the most part, is the position you've outlined here.



If you look deep into the heart of people, and you look to God, you can see that logic and evolution play a role in this world of humans. If you deep into evolution and logic, you can understand why faith in creationsm exist. Both sides are right, but for different reasons.

Our future is not settling the argument...it is agreeing that both are true things from different places, both play a role, and in the end we as people are all that matter...whether we were created or evolved.


.... Or if we were created via evolution, no? All in all Quest a great post and welcome contribution to the O&C forum.


Have a good one.
Kindest regards
-Rren

*couple more comments to be continued in next post (seems I've rambled on past my limit)
*



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
darkelf

You're wasting your time trying to engage skep/sayswho in a debate. He/she always posts one, and only one, psuedo-intellectual comment in these O&C threads and never (in my experience) will actually debate or suport his/her position... the 'you morons don't even know the definition of theory' is his/her favorite. Just FYI. *shrug*

Prot0n


Benefits of faith?

Ah you must mean holy wars? Or burning the wicked witch's? Or the genocide's? Or hell, to many "benefits" to list. All I can say is thank effing god (haha, I made a funny!) that religion is declining. Atleast then we won't have people claiming to be "good" and then killing in the name of their god. God damn hypocrits. You can't take your benefits and shove em. I don't need no bloody holy wars or massacres or religous zealots.

Only benefit we need is some damn common sense, something religous people lack.


Would you like the list of atheistic cultures and their atrocities, or are you content to lay all the world's woes at the feet of the faithful? Remove religion from the world and you think you'll have eutopia? An egomaniac is an egomaniac regardless of his/her religous affiliation... these are the acts of man. If (that man) didn't have God to use as his/her excuse he/she would find another (excuse.) History is full of such examples... you disagree?



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Now that time has passed and I have caught up on the post, I have just one more comment to add to this thread.

Being a atheist and scientist who has seen religion at it's worst and best, I think there is one important thing that clearly a lot of people do not get...

There are no sides in this debate. We are all human and regardless of what is "right" we can live accepting each other and finding a middle ground, or we can create hate.

I can forgive many creationist because many of them simply lack the ability and background to understand why evolution is so accepted. I have much more trouble forgiving those that claim to be logical who sit and argue facts to those who can not or will not accept them.

The zeal with which "logical" people preach logic makes about as much sense as yelling at a gun for causing violence. Blaming war on religion is may be *true* but does it help? Does it change anything? So many "logical" people seem to fail to see the path to reaching those of faith. And the faithful seem to fail to see the path to reaching those of logic.

I think those that so passionately defend evolution and are so quick to highlight the evils of religion clearly spent all their logic on hard science, and neglected philosophy, sociology, and psychology.

In the end though, all I can do is say these words in hopes they reach some. I know they will do little for most.

Love each other first. Worry about factual and testable reality second. Jesus and Physics are both right...it is their followers who learn only one story that are wrong. I will listen to your logic when you can also quote the Koran or Dostoevsky. I will listen to your faith when you can also calculate an orbit or thermal reaction.

-Quest, Atheist and Evolutionist.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Just wanted to say this:

You have voted Quest for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
I can forgive many creationist because many of them simply lack the ability and background to understand why evolution is so accepted. I have much more trouble forgiving those that claim to be logical who sit and argue facts to those who can not or will not accept them.


This was kind of a condescending arguement, don't you think? Creationists are kind of like ignorant little children who don't understand? I'm glad you can find it in your heart to forgive the little morons.

So here are a few questions for you. Where is the proof of Macro-Evolution? Yes, we all know that micro-evolution exists, this has been more or less proven by scientific methodology. But I have yet to see any compelling evidence that Macro-Evolution does.

First, you'll point out the fossilized species of horses found in Africa. There are a wide range of horses, differnet sizes and shapes, that seem to make a nice little chart of the evoution of the horse. There's your evidence. But I could make a chart identical to that, using monkeys that all currently exist in South America. I could take their bones, place them all in a nice neat order, and say "See, this one existed befor ethis one, which evolved into this one, and then this one came next" etc. Only it wouldn't be true. They were diverse species living at the same time, which, if you believe in evolution, came from a common ancestor, not one another.

My problem with evolution, is the mathematical probabilities just don't work out. The statistical probability of having an allele drift that is beneficial to the survival of a species, as opposed to harmful, is very astronomical (for example, think of all of the ways a genetic mutation can go wrong, and harm the species as opposed to helping it in a very specific way. There are an infinite number of possible negative mutations, versus a finite amount of positive ones). Then multiply that by the genetic possibility of that mutation being something passed down genetically from parent to offspring. Now multiply that by the genetic possibility of it being a dominant trait, versus a passive trait (for example, the genetic mutation in humans where some are born with 6 fingers). If evolution functions in this way, it would take trillions of years longer than it has for life to evolve into the millions of different forms of life we observe on earth today.

Here's where I have a problem with the Evolutionary movement. Instead of participating ina debate, where a person can admit that what they believe is a theory, or an idea, just like their opponents claims are theories and ideas, instead we have believers in Evolution who toute their belief in a theory as scientific fact, and mock and condescend those who disagree with their veiwpoint. The term "Scientific Fact" is thrown around far to frequently, especially on these boards. Macro-Evolution is far from being a scientific fact. It is a theory. An interesting theory, that might be correct, but to have a condescending attitude, and to bliondly call it fact because that's what you were taught in school, seems no less asanine that defending creationism because that's what you learned in the Bible.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Athenion
(for example, think of all of the ways a genetic mutation can go wrong, and harm the species as opposed to helping it in a very specific way. There are an infinite number of possible negative mutations, versus a finite amount of positive ones).


First let me say that I am happy to respond to this because it is clearly based on a knowledge of both sides. And yes, my statement was condescending, but not with an intent to offend, rather I was addressing the view point of many in the evolution camp. In my experience, the majority of creationist are very smart people. They are just not logical. I never said anyone was a moron, wisdom can be both logical or spiritual. Faith, determination, and other factors can make a person very smart while still very illogical.

Now, as to your argument... because you addressed it in a logical manner I shall respond based on only logic.

You said there are an infinite number of negative mutations and a finite number of positive ones. This is illogical. There are a finite number of mutations, though the number is rather large (billions of DNA base pairs offer huge amount of possible mutations, but still a finite number).

In addition you can not qualify any mutation as negative or positive because it makes an assumption as to the results of such a mutation. This is illogical. For example, in the human population blindness may be considered negative, however, if a population or people were forced underground due to some event, suddenly the blind are at a huge advantage being able to navigate with their increased other senses. Future generations would favor those that do not waste energy on useless eyes.

A real example of this are elephants. Tusk on elephants were a good thing. They could use them as tools and for defense. Until humans changed the world around them. Now elephants without tusk are favored because they offer no ivory and the drift is now pushing them forward.

www.boingboing.net...

If you go by logic, this shows that ANY mutation can be a good one and move forward quickly (only a few generations) while the random not-currently-helpful ones just mill about or die off.

All that said, I have no issues if you do not believe in macroevolution due to FAITH. Which was my original point. If you do not believe in evolution due to logic, you need to review your logic and consult with others of logic to hammer out the confusion.

For future explorations of the logical concept of macroevolution, keep in mind that you can not qualify a mutation without knowing the full extend of an eviroment.

There is not PROOF of historic macroevolution but it is the most LOGICAL conclusion.

There is no PROOF of creation but it is the most FAITHFUL conclusion.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Hello Quest,

I'm glad you've decided to continue this conversation, as I find the whole subject quite fascinating.


Originally posted by Quest
You said there are an infinite number of negative mutations and a finite number of positive ones. This is illogical. There are a finite number of mutations, though the number is rather large (billions of DNA base pairs offer huge amount of possible mutations, but still a finite number).

In addition you can not qualify any mutation as negative or positive because it makes an assumption as to the results of such a mutation. This is illogical. For example, in the human population blindness may be considered negative, however, if a population or people were forced underground due to some event, suddenly the blind are at a huge advantage being able to navigate with their increased other senses. Future generations would favor those that do not waste energy on useless eyes.


First of all, you are incorrect in the assumption that there is a finite amount of possible mutations. This is simply not the way genetics works. This is why genetisists, when trying to understand genetic drift and natural selection, use the Infinite Allele Model.


Genetic Drift and Selection: the neutral theory of molecular evolution
Some terminology that will be needed in this section: A substitution is the complete replacement of one allele by another within a population. The new allele attains a frequency of one (100 percent) and it is said that it has gone to fixation. The term nucleotide or amino acid substitution usually means the complete replacement of one nucleotide or amino acid by another at a specific position within a gene. and within a population. Among nucleotide substitutions, one distinguishes between synonymous and non-synonymous substitutions. A population in which an allele has gone to fixation is called monomorphic for that allele. If more than one allele segregates at a gene locus, the population is said to be polymorphic at that locus.

In what follows, only mutations will be considered that are selectively neutral, i.e., mutations thate have no influence on the chance of an individual to reproduce or survive. Also, N shall stand for the effective population size and not the census population size. One central result from the theory of genetic drift will be needed:

In a diploid population of (effective) size N, an allele that arose de novo by mutation has probability 1/2N of becoming eventually fixed in the population.
In the following, mutations are not viewed as interconverting few alleles at a locus, but they are viewed as, more realistically, causing changes in the DNA sequence of a gene. Thus, most mutations will create new alleles different from the ones existing in the population before. This is known as an infinite allele model. If mutations (for example base substitutions) occur at a rate u at any given locus A, and if a fraction f of these mutations is neutral (i.e., does not have an effect on fitness), then the rate of neutral mutations per generation is u0=fu. Because there are 2N alleles in the population, 2Nu0 mutations are newly generated every generation. A fraction 1/2N of these will eventually become fixed. Thus, each generation 2Nu0/2N=u0 mutations arise in a population that will eventually become fixed.


So I fail to see how this is illogical. Also, while your point is valid that some things which might be seen as a negative mutation (in your example, being blind) might one day end up being a positive mutation, it is still true that there are an infinite number of negative, or life harming mutations, such as being born with only one lung, or skin that is allergic to sunlight, etc., etc., etc.

So I still fail to see how your theory of evolution is logical. I'm not syaing it is necessarily incorrect, but I don't believe it's built on as concrete a foundation as most atheists who don't study genetics believe.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   


In a diploid population of (effective) size N, an allele that arose de novo by mutation has probability 1/2N of becoming eventually fixed in the population.
In the following, mutations are not viewed as interconverting few alleles at a locus, but they are viewed as, more realistically, causing changes in the DNA sequence of a gene. Thus, most mutations will create new alleles different from the ones existing in the population before. This is known as an infinite allele model. If mutations (for example base substitutions) occur at a rate u at any given locus A, and if a fraction f of these mutations is neutral (i.e., does not have an effect on fitness), then the rate of neutral mutations per generation is u0=fu. Because there are 2N alleles in the population, 2Nu0 mutations are newly generated every generation. A fraction 1/2N of these will eventually become fixed. Thus, each generation 2Nu0/2N=u0 mutations arise in a population that will eventually become fixed.


A finite system can not have infinite configurations. This is a high level break in logic.

I will only say that the infinite allele model is well known to be inaccurate because it causes undercounting of mutations, which is funny, because it UNDERcounts making the number smaller than is may truly be. As to why you quote it, I can only assume you saw the word infinite in it and quoted it not knowing that it is known for limiting the observed mutations by disregarding duplicates. In addition, it clearly states the model (2Nu0/2N=u0) which shows...it always has a finite solution!

Clearly you are taking the term infinite literally.

Now if you can prove to me mathematically that a finite system can indeed have infinite configurations, then not only will I tip my hat and admit defeat, but I'll come cheer you on when you collect your Nobel prize.

I appreciate that you are tackling the theory of evolution on logical and scientific terms.

In the future, you should not quote things that prove my point if you hope to sway me or defend your stance.


So I still fail to see how your theory of evolution is logical. I'm not saying it is necessarily incorrect, but I don't believe it's built on as concrete a foundation as most atheists who don't study genetics believe.


You are letting your agenda slip. I know many Christian and Muslim Geneticist who agree with the theory of evolution. So not only are they religious, but they have ALSO studied genetics, and therefore can choose a view given both sides. Targeting atheist and misunderstanding of the above theory are hardly signs of someone arguing a point within the confines of logic and science.

If you'd prefer to argue the origin of species in terms or religion and faith, I'd be happy to do so.



new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join