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.

 

Mutations cannot be the mechanism of Evolution.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Your signature seems to belie what you just said:



If you are an evolutionist, Darwin—not nature—dictates what you believe. Evolutionists subordinate observational evidence to doctrine based on their interpretation of On the Origin of Species. The tenets of evolutionary naturalism are not testable, nor are they subject to dramatic change based on new data. In other words, Evolutionism is a form of religion


On the other hand, maybe you just haven't changed it yet. I find it interesting that you believe your other friend, the doctor, when he tells you about this stuff, but not the people here. Would it help if I told you I was a practicing biological researcher for a few years there?

Anyway, all of this amounts to sour grapes on my part. If you're willing to listen to the evidence on evolution, I withdraw what I said before.




posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Alex Kennedy,

I still do not believe evolution to be correct but I do admit that my sources were wrong in my previous assertations. However I still maintain that evolution in its current form is incorrect. I have studied this subject for well over eight years now and there is still more evidence that falsifies evolution than supports it..

Does this mean that I am automatically a creationist? No, because creationism cannot be proven and as Amantine has pointed out on numerous occasions cannot be disproved. However this also seems to be the status that evolution shares. No matter how much evidence weighs against the theory it still stands.

Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box would probably appeal to you since you were a practicing biological researcher. It outlines hundreds of evidences against evolution that are all on the genetic level.

In the end a form of evolution may be the true development of life, however I highly doubt it. If it is proven within my lifetime everyone can say I told you so and I will graciously admit I was wrong. However, until someone at least attempts to fill in the wholes with a new theory I don’t think the origins answer will be even close to being answered.

As for my signature it is a generalization of the evolutionists who are evolutionist forever and ever amen. These are the people that cling to the theory with every ounce of strength they possess. On the flip side there are creationists that share the same addiction to their theory so it could be restated as thus:

If you are a Creationist, the Bible—not nature—dictates what you believe. Creationists subordinate observational evidence to doctrine based on their interpretation of sacred texts. The tenets of biblical Creationism are not testable, nor are they subject to dramatic change based on new data. In other words, Creationism is a form of religion.

It’s a two way street but unfortunately neither side is willing to search for the truth. Each is unwavering in its dogma and thus everyone suffers because of it.

[edit on 28-6-2004 by BlackJackal]



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   
[edit on 28-6-2004 by BlackJackal]



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 07:46 AM
link   
sorry to take so long to reply to this:

BlackJackal says

In order for evolution to occur, new traits (genes) have to be gained by an organism so that a simple organism can evolve into a complex organism. Simply passing on the same traits will not cause an Amoeba to become a more complex creature.

Scientists have tried to explain this mechnasm through random genetic mutations. The point of this thread is that random mutations cannot produce evolutionary changes neccesarry for the variety we see today.


For evolution to occur within a sexually reproducing population, for the genetic makeup of that population to change over time, u need the prerequisites i mentioned in my last post, but, yes, for one of those prerequisiites to be present, ie variation of traits within a population, there must be a casue of this diversity, which in the first instance would be mutations.
From what i have read and learned it is proved that mutation occurs, even in asexually reproducing populations (studies on the changes with time in human mitochondria show this mutation) and that those mutations can be passed on to offspring, now as to wether mutation in itsself would be able to account for the diversity we now witness, it seems to me is a matter of conjecture rather than proof.

Also mutation is not the only mechanism by which diversity occurs:

In an asexually reproducing population such as bacteria, there are two modes of diversification in genetic makeup, firstly mutations and secondly the passing on of plasmids of genetic material between organisms within a population. So even here diversity does not reley on mutation alone

Once sexual reproduction occurs, new combinations are produced very rapidly, but when combined with certain breeding practices, such as a balance between inbreeding and outbreeding levels, which mitigate detrimental effects of these two extremes, unfavourable combinations and huge extremes of variation are limited unless a change in environment increases the fitness of a certain extreme trait.

So evolution theory does not reley on mutation alone to account for the diversity we see now, there is also sexual reproduction and plasmid exchange in micro organisms and it seems to me when these mechanisms are combined with mutation then well its a pretty solid theory.

Plant breeding and animal breeding are sufficient proof that all the mechanisms needed for evolution to occur are there. And we also know that mutation does occur from one generation to the next, therefore it seems to me that at present the theory that the diversity of organisms we see now is the result of natural selection of differences caused by mutation and sexual reproduction is the best theory we have to explain this diversity.

This post is abit long and waffling, sorry about that, its abit of a complicated matter to explain all of evolution theory straight off and there is a great amount of disagreement about mechanisms by which evolution occurs, and im not that up on it all LOL

oops i forgot, there are other mechanisms whereby dramatic changes can occur to an organisms offspring with just a change to a few genes, one such process may have occured during the evolution of man, whereby certain processes are throzen in a juvenile state while others are allowed to run to maturity, i cant remember the technical name for this mechanism

so to summerise all this mutation, while the basic mechanism, is not the only mechanism by which diversity occurs, according to modern evolutionary theory


[edit on 2-7-2004 by moranity1]

[edit on 2-7-2004 by moranity1]

[edit on 2-7-2004 by moranity1]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
An update to this topic:

It appears that scientist's have dropped the term "Junk DNA" totally they are now refering to it as "Gene Deserts" and saying



As part of their examination of chromosome 4, the researchers found what are believed to be the largest "gene deserts" yet discovered in the human genome sequence. These regions of the genome are called gene deserts because they are devoid of any protein-coding genes. However, researchers suspect such regions are important to human biology because they have been conserved throughout the evolution of mammals and birds, and work is now underway to figure out their exact functions.


www.genome.gov...

For those of you that don't know Junk DNA is stretches of DNA that do not code for genes. These streches of DNA have for some time been considered the left overs from Eon's of Evolutionary mutations.



posted on Apr, 19 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   
.
The repair mechanisms from what i saw seemed to be repairing lesions caused by damage from UV radiation and other things.

They are damaged DNA. that means they won't function as replicating units. And presumably are recognised as such by the cell.

If on the other hand a virus inserts itself into the DNA, there is no apparent problem. The replication of DNA functions just as before, only it now produces the proteins the Virus has added.

There is evidence that retroviruses get themselves installed in the germ-line (reproduction seed cells). A mutation, in general just creates damage which simply kills off the usability of DNA. While a virus may of dubious use to the organism/species it does code for a structural or useful protein for something.


genetic material from inactive viruses accounts for roughly 3 percent of the human genome.
www.hhmi.org...

Infectious Evolution: Ancient Virus Hit Apes, Not Our Ancestors, In The Genes

Like murderers only some of these ancient viruses have been identified. More likely there are many more that have been altered or partially overwritten and are not identifiable.

Not only is evolution brutal it is positively sick and nasty. Its vehicle is infectious viral diseases passed through sex to one's offspring. How many young died, adding new genetic code?

Evolution Does Not Care.

Evolution = evilution?



posted on Apr, 19 2005 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
No it isn't perfect as outlined by the last article that I posted the mechanisms wear out over time and are not able to keep up but, like you said people do have genes that mutate and cause cancer. Are these the mutations needed for evolution?

Too many mutations can kill an organism not help it.


My take on this is that for evolution to happen there needs to be an external factor like Climate Change for one. I do not see evolution as a straight line but more like a rollarcoaster ride with bumps and dips in the rode leading to either A: A new succefull species or B: An extinc species. Don't know much about the genetic aspect of all of this but thats how I understand it nowadays.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I'm sick of everyone on this forum getting it wrong yet again about HIV.

HIV is not a virus. It is a retrovirus (if it exists at all, as this hasn't been proved). Never in the history of medicine has a retrovirus been known to cause disease. Never. Only viruses cause disease in traditional Pasteur medicine.

Secondly, the whole problem I have with evolution is the premise that one species turns into another. (I wonder what spieces I am turning into. Mmm a gorilla perhaps, no I fancy becoming a fish, but not in the North Sea).

Evolutionalists also site two examples of one speices turing into another. I've forgotten what they are, but they are very weak examples and assumptions based on a couple of fish in a lake in the US or Canada.

Remember that an organism of one spieces cannot mate with another. If the spieces are so closly related that they do (Horse and Pony = Mule) then that offspring is sterile.

This isn't to say that natural selection hasn't occured within a spieces. On the contary I think it has. As has already ben pointed out, there is a lot of artificial selection which we do ourselves with animals. That alone has fascinated me.
The implications of which I have yet to figure out.

What is interesting is how we as a spieces have streamlined ourselves. I once heard the hypothesis that everytime the human race has a war it weeds out the brave people because the cowards stay behind to reproduce whilst the brave people go off to fight and die before they have babies. An interesting idea.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   
There are some fundamental flaws with the logic that started this thread. Yes DNA repair mechanisms do exist, and they do repair damage to DNA, and errors in DNA replication. Even so, polymerases have an inherent corrected error rate. This error rate is in part responsible for mutations that get passed on to the next generation.

The problem with stating that mutation can't be the mechanism of evolution is this: Evolution is alleged to take place, at least in part, through a series of small progressive changes in the genome which can accumulate over time. In general these small variations are represented by single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). SNP's absolutely provide an advantage to some organisms, IOW, SNP's allow populations to adapt to changing conditions. Thus mutation IS one mechanism of adaptation. If evolution is hypothesized to be the result of a series of progressive adaptations, then SNP's, or mutations absolutely play a role in this.

For those who might follow my posting re: evolution, this doesn't represent a change in my beliefs or anything... I'm just trying to call a black kettle a black kettle. Anyway...


Originally posted by labasta
I'm sick of everyone on this forum getting it wrong yet again about HIV.

Including yourself?


HIV is not a virus. It is a retrovirus (if it exists at all, as this hasn't been proved).

Hmmm... not a virus but a retrovirus. Well you're wrong too, it's not a retrovirus, it's a lentivirus.

The last time I checked HIV was classified as retrovirus, in the lentivirus family, which both fall under the general heading of Virus. Thus HIV IS a virus. Retrovirus merely refers to the way its genetic information is stored and processed.

HIV absolutely exists, and this has been proven. There are pretty pics like the one below, which shows HIV virions budding off from a cell, of this virus taken in thousands of labs across the world.



Never in the history of medicine has a retrovirus been known to cause disease.

This may be true... at least according to Duesberg it's true. But... So what? There's a first time for everything. FYI, RNA viruses (retroviruses are a type of RNA virus) are known to cause lots of diseases. Off the top of my head let's see how many pathogenic RNA viruses I can think of: Hepatitis A & C, Hanta Virus, HTLV, SARS, West Nile Virus, Rabies, Measles, Ebola, Marburg (pretty sure), Mumps, parainfluenza, the entire Noro family, which includes Norwalk virus of cruise ship fame. So... yeah maybe no other known retrovirus causes disease, but lots of RNA viruses do.


Only viruses cause disease in traditional Pasteur medicine.

Not sure what this means... I guess this is alluding back to the "HIV isn't a virus, it's a retrovirus," train of logic. Apparently though a history lesson is required. Pasteur postulated the 'germ theory of disease.' Pasteur lived pretty much his entire life (he died in 1895) without knowing that viruses existed. The first virus, tobacco mosaic virus, was discovered by a Russian scientist, Ivanofski, or something like that in 1892, three years before Pasteurs death. Ivanofski's work was never repeated (confirmed) until 1898, nearly three years after Pasteurs death.


Secondly, the whole problem I have with evolution is the premise that one species turns into another. (I wonder what spieces I am turning into. Mmm a gorilla perhaps, no I fancy becoming a fish, but not in the North Sea).

Perhaps a review of a high school biology text is in order.


Evolutionalists also site two examples of one speices turing into another. I've forgotten what they are, but they are very weak examples and assumptions based on a couple of fish in a lake in the US or Canada.

There seems to be some confusion. The motto of ATS is DENY ignorance, not embrace ignorance. If you're going to take the time to bash scientific theories, it helps to be minimally familiar with the theories and their proposed lines of evidence. Evolutionists cite lots of alleged transitional organisms. While not my favorite site the Talk Origins site has a good description.

Nygdan is probably so proud of me for that link



Remember that an organism of one spieces cannot mate with another. If the spieces are so closly related that they do (Horse and Pony = Mule) then that offspring is sterile.

Okay.... and your point is....


This isn't to say that natural selection hasn't occured within a spieces. On the contary I think it has. As has already ben pointed out, there is a lot of artificial selection which we do ourselves with animals. That alone has fascinated me.
The implications of which I have yet to figure out.

So you don't understand the implications of either artificial or natural selection, yet you post like you're an authority? Interesting.


What is interesting is how we as a spieces have streamlined ourselves. I once heard the hypothesis that everytime the human race has a war it weeds out the brave people because the cowards stay behind to reproduce whilst the brave people go off to fight and die before they have babies. An interesting idea.

So selecting for cowardice is somehow 'streamlining' the human race? That's one I've not seen covered in the journals. Perhaps you can provide a ref.



[edit on 20-4-2005 by mattison0922]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I see.

Well since you are the expert in evolution, which I am not. I am a layman who questions what is written through my own logic. Please could you explain to me the theory of evolution quoted in your textbooks. Then we can have something on the table to discuss.

The fact that one spieces cannot mate with another is a valid point. If one member of a spieces mutates to become a different spieces and mates with one of its own, then the offspring, if it has any, are sterile.

I would appreciate you to explain to me in more detail how that can be overcome. I don't mean that in a condescending way at all. I'm serious. I am a layman. I wish to find out more. Please help.

Secondly, the theory of the cowards don't die in war is not an academic journal study lol, it was an idea put forward by a friend of mine that got me thinking. Thinking is good for everyone I believe. It's how people get ideas and can get creative. It's normally how new things get invented.

It has been known that HIV is a retrovirus which as you pointed out is technically speaking a virus, but these types of viruses never cause disease.
Mavbe there is first for everything.
The question is: do you believe that? In the whole history of modern medicine this has never happened before and yet it happens now. Don't you question your authority which has told you that? Or do you accept that hands down?

I have read what Duesberg, Rasnick and the gang have said about HIV and as a layman I have to agree. You don't, that's fine. Can you refute what they say with evidence. I would like to hear the other half of the story as that is the only side I have heard.

Come back to me and we can question the theories together.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by labasta
Well since you are the expert in evolution, which I am not. I am a layman who questions what is written through my own logic. Please could you explain to me the theory of evolution quoted in your textbooks. Then we can have something on the table to discuss.

Hmmmm... I assumed we were all on the same page here. While I am not a huge proponent of evolutionary theories, a very basic definition would be something like a process that results in heritable changes in a population over many generations. But a definition such as this is too simplistic; if the definition were just this, there would be no dispute. Based on this definition, evolution absolutely exists. IMO, problems arise when statements state that evolution is a process wherein the present diversity of all life on Earth arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms start to enter the definition.


The fact that one spieces cannot mate with another is a valid point. If one member of a spieces mutates to become a different spieces and mates with one of its own, then the offspring, if it has any, are sterile.

I don't believe it's a valid point in terms of the evolution debate. I believe that your statement is confusing a couple of different concepts. Your confusing speciation with hybridization. Hybrids are generally sterile, but hybrids don't represent speciation events. The other problem with this line of logic stems from the idea of exactly what evolves. Individuals don't evolve, populations do.


I would appreciate you to explain to me in more detail how that can be overcome. I don't mean that in a condescending way at all. I'm serious. I am a layman. I wish to find out more. Please help.

No offense taken. I am assuming this is written in reference to the 'species cannot mate' paragraph above. Does my earlier rebuttal clear up any of this for you? If not, ask some more questions, and we can try again



Secondly, the theory of the cowards don't die in war is not an academic journal study lol, it was an idea put forward by a friend of mine that got me thinking. Thinking is good for everyone I believe. It's how people get ideas and can get creative. It's normally how new things get invented.

Bravo for using your brain
Of course I am a huge proponent of thinking.
Anyway... with respect to cowardice and war: Not going to war doesn't make one a coward. I am not sure that military service is enough of a selective pressure to have a real impact on the allele frequencies of any genes. Furthermore, most of my friends that have joined the military had no intention of going to war... they were really only interested in the GI Bill. So... joining the military isn't necessarily something that only the brave do. In addition to this, I don't believe that complex behaviors, like bravery, are controlled at the level of a single gene, in fact, I am inclined to believe that most behaviors have very little genetic components.


It has been known that HIV is a retrovirus which as you pointed out is technically speaking a virus, but these types of viruses never cause disease.

Now, I know that this is the postulate put forth by Duesberg and others. Is this true, or is it just that we've not discovered any diseases caused by retroviruses. I've not thought about this area of research for sometime, but I thought I'd do a quick search. It turns out that retroviruses are known to cause diseases. This article discusses three diseases, enzootic bovine leukosis, equine infectious anaemia and caprine arthritis-encephalitis, which are caused by retroviruses. Retroviruses also have been implicated in the development of certain leukemias.


Mavbe there is first for everything.

And apparently HIV isn't a first.


The question is: do you believe that? In the whole history of modern medicine this has never happened before and yet it happens now. Don't you question your authority which has told you that? Or do you accept that hands down?

I absolutely question it. This is why I am familiar with the work of people like Duesberg. Furthermore the history of modern medicine isn't that extensive and as I pointed out in my earlier post, viruses were discovered less than a century ago. It's entirely likely we've not figured out all the diseases they play a role in.


I have read what Duesberg, Rasnick and the gang have said about HIV and as a layman I have to agree. You don't, that's fine. Can you refute what they say with evidence. I would like to hear the other half of the story as that is the only side I have heard.

This has been done to death here on ATS probably a million times, but in the interest of not leaving the thread hanging, I'll post a ref to keep the discussion alive. The NIH analyzed HIV, AIDS and Koch's Postulates, demonstrating that in as much as it's possible HIV fulfills all of Koch's postulates with respect to HIV and AIDS.


Come back to me and we can question the theories together.

Sounds like a plan









posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I'm back and rather quickly too.

I'll start with the evolution thing. You're right though, We might have to start to drop the HIV thing, otherwise it'll get off topic and it's been done before. Shall we stick with evolution (mind you, that's probably been done a lot before too)?

Ok, let's start with the cowardice idea. I hadn't thought about the "joining the military during peacetime idea". Under those conditions you would be right that bravery wouldn't be the motive, but college education perhaps.
Also in these days since Vietnam there has been a reluctance to fight perceived "phoney" wars which could be seen as brave deviance not to do what the establishment says.

What about before that when the male populace all thought that fighting was the heroic thing to do? OK, maybe the idiotic gene got through.
That point aside, the men who ran away during the first and second world war and avoided conscription (seen as cowardice in those days) could have easily produced with the ladies due to supply and demand. My grandad once said that he wished he had ducked out and sold nylon stockings on the black market like the dodgy dealers who stayed behind.

I've just thought of something else my grandad said that could be related. He was in the marines and only 4 out of a hundred survived in his regiment by the end of the war. He joined the policeforce in Birmingham (UK). He said that society had changed so much. He said the men in the policeforce where the scum of the Earth that had never fought and were totally different to the men he fought with and died. They were thoroughly corrupt and amoral. He left after a few months when they asked him to pin a load of burgularies on a guy they knew hadn't done it, just to get the quota.

Maybe cowardice isn't one gene, but then does that mean that such a trait can not or can be passed on to the next generations. This is actually what I meant by "the implications of which I have not figured out yet".
Maybe some traits aren't genetic and can't be passed on.

What I truly find mindboggling are dog (more so than horse) breeding. As I have read (ie might not be true, please correct if I'm wrong), certain dogs were bred to exhibit certain characteristics. The labrador was bred to like water and fetch the rope from the ships coming into port in the town of Labrador (I think that is Canada).
Other dogs are bred to fight. What amazes me are the variations bred within one spieces. I mean look at the terrier and look at the great dane. Holy # how did they do that? I also read that terriers in the old days were big dogs bred to protect sheep. West Highlands were for this purpose I think. Now look at them. They are granny dogs. Did they breed the smallest of the terriers continually until the small gene was only exhibited. I mean doesnt the big gene express itself once and a while? That's what I can't get my head around.

Maybe we need a dogbreeder to explain to us how this is done.

Mmmm, that was quite a rant on that. I'll leave evolution for minor injections if that is ok with you?



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Sorry, I forgot to mention the thing about "what is bravery" bit.
I suppose in war times of the past it would be physical bravery. That could be just one side of it. Still it could be a trait nevertheless.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
labasta, I'm reserving my right to comment on just this particular portion of your post for the time being. I'll try to get back to the cowardice thing later.


Originally posted by labasta
What I truly find mindboggling are dog (more so than horse) breeding. As I have read (ie might not be true, please correct if I'm wrong), certain dogs were bred to exhibit certain characteristics.

Absolutely true. Artificial selection was employed to gradually limit the diversity of certain dog types.


Other dogs are bred to fight.

Completely off the topic, but I own pit bulls. They're pretty much the only pure bred dog I would consider owning. Great people dogs... incredibly stable - despite the news media has done to these dogs.


What amazes me are the variations bred within one spieces. I mean look at the terrier and look at the great dane. Holy # how did they do that? I also read that terriers in the old days were big dogs bred to protect sheep. West Highlands were for this purpose I think. Now look at them. They are granny dogs. Did they breed the smallest of the terriers continually until the small gene was only exhibited. I mean doesnt the big gene express itself once and a while? That's what I can't get my head around.

Dog breeds represent concentration of specific alleles within certain breeds. You can think of a population of mutts as being extremely genetically diverse - lots of different sizes, markings, coat colors, skull characteristics, behavior patterns etc. Breeders choose traits that they are interested in for whatever reason, they think it looks cool, it makes a better hunter, whatever, and apply artificial selection to breed those traits in. If a population of mutts represents a high degree of genetic diversity, then a population of west highland represents limited genetic diversity. The alleles for particular traits are concentrated in those breeds. Show dogs are very subject to this. They are bred for a standard - to look a certain way. Genes for particular appearances are selected for, often at the expense of the animals health and comfort. A great example of this is the English Bulldog... total freaks, but not freaks of nature, freaks of selective human breeding. Incidentally bull baiting dogs were much more akin to modern day pitties or American bulldogs than to gremlinesque english bulldogs. This idea of breeding dogs for show standards is also a reason why I opt for a 'working dog' like a pittie. they are bred for performance, not for some standard. My favorite dog of all time, Madison, (a partial source for my on line moniker) is a pittie right off of fighting blood. She was seized at a dog fight as a puppy. She is absolutely the most stable, smartest, and well behaved dog I've ever known. I'd trust her with my life, and I trust her 100% around kids, even though I'd never leave her unsupervised around children. However, she pretty much can't be around other dogs... despite how hard I worked to socialize her with other dogs when she was young. But I digress....

Anyway... dog breeds represent a concentration of particular traits into a single breed. You only very rarely see large westies for example, because those alleles have been effectively removed from that population of animals. It is also noteworthy that dog breeds are ARTIFICIAL populations. Those populations wouldn't be stable in the wild. Dog breeds are not opposed to breeding with other breeds, even in the extreme cases.

Does this help at all?


I'll leave evolution for minor injections if that is ok with you?

Minor injections? Are you diabetic?



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Yeah, that's interesting. I had heard about that for show dogs, didn't know about pitbulls though. I don't have time right now to inject a substantial post.

I'll ask pesky questions later.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I had a few interesting questions, but I can't be bothered today. Do you ever get those "can't be bothered to think" days? Can we swap roles? Can I play the dogmatician and you the heretic?
I think I have a rough idea of how to play that role, I used to be one when I was a teen. I was only an apprentice dogmatician, I would have needed at least 5 years experience in scientific academia to become a master. I remember making this poor 14 year old girl cry when I blasted her to high heaven about evolution. She went to a Christian school and rigidly believed in creationism like it is said in the bible. I feel ashamed about that. It isn't something I am proud of.

I have observed a few tips on being a dogmatician. I am sure there are more.
1. Always do your best to refute with technobabble. The more scientific terminology the better. It gives a false sense of intellectual superiority.

2. Above all shower the heretic with as many references as possible countering their claims. This "opinion in numbers" shows that the heretic is wrong.

3. Never actually give evidence, but just claim there is lots. Again, shower with references at all possible moments, regardless of whether the references show any evidence or not.

4. Always be condescending by saying remarks like "you haven't even read a 3rd grade textbook on what you are talking about". Or "only a layman would say such a thing". A dogmatician has learnt everything they know from textbooks and so the textbooks must be right.

5. Be anal. It helps. Exactitude adds authority.

6. On the ATS forum make sure you include the words "deny ignorance" which translated means "embrace dogmatism"

Here are a few tips on being a heretic:
1. If somethng doesn't make sense, for example there is something slightly illogical about the Jesus Christ story, don't point out the illogicality, just go to one extreme and say that Jesus Christ doesn't exist. It angers people more and increases the chance of a dogmatist coming your way.

2. Don't display any evidence, just your opinion camouflaged as fact.

3. Ignore certain points by a dogmatist that cannot be refuted with evidence.

4. Don't listen to what the dogmatist is saying and continue as you did before.

5. Make sure you don't say anything which cannot be refuted by internet references and technobabble. The terminology used must be layman-like.


If you have any more, please let me know before i go off and practice.
Do you want to come and join me. Let's reverse roles. Not many people are reading this thread. They won't know who we are. Do you want to start a thread "Jesus Christ didn't exist" or how about the old classics "Gravity is a push" or maybe "The ether is gravity" or how about "Is big oil suppressing free energy machines" That last one will be an easy one for me to refute because I have seen most of the counter arguments. I reckon I could be pretty good.

Then later we could practice the other two stereotypes on ATS, namely:
"the clueless idiot" and the "delusional newager"
Let's stick with dogmatician and heretic first though I think.

What do you say? Are you game?



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
The problem with stating that mutation can't be the mechanism of evolution is this: Evolution is alleged to take place, at least in part, through a series of small progressive changes in the genome which can accumulate over time. In general these small variations are represented by single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). SNP's absolutely provide an advantage to some organisms, IOW, SNP's allow populations to adapt to changing conditions. Thus mutation IS one mechanism of adaptation. If evolution is hypothesized to be the result of a series of progressive adaptations, then SNP's, or mutations absolutely play a role in this.


The only problem with this is you are taking evolution as a given. You are assuming evolution is true. There is no conclusive proof that proves your argument.

[edit on 22-4-2005 by BlackJackal]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
The only problem with this is you are taking evolution as a given. You are assuming evolution is true. There is no conclusive proof that proves your argument.

Actually, if you knew ANYTHING about my posting re: evolution you'd never say I take evolution as a given. Read a thread on ATS entitled 'creationist confusion' for a perspective on my beliefs re: evolution.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   
mattison0922,

With all due respect, according to the statment you posted it sounded as if you were taking evolution as a given. If I misunderstood your intentions I apologize.

Take a look at what I emphasized



If evolution is hypothesized to be the result of a series of progressive adaptations, then SNP's, or mutations absolutely play a role in this.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Ok, back to my current heretical role.

I understand now. SNPs are the leading candidates for evolution.
As I understand it when a person or any organism gets older, each replication of the cell is an inferior version of the last due to increased genetic damage. I take it that this genetic damage is due to mutations caused by mutagens (big word for me, I just made it up, hope it is right). So, logically if a person reproduces when they are nearing the end of their reproductive age (which is happening increasingly in the West) then they will have more chance of their offspring having inferior, I mean, cells with more mutated genes and so their offspring will have more of a random chance at being superior (better looking, more gregarious personality, more intelligent etc). Or they could have more of a chance of being spasticated or having Down's syndrome maybe. Roll the dice. So evolution of the spieces goes on. The fittest survive etc.

But, hang on a minute. The babies born don't have 40 year old cells. They have newborn undamaged cells. #, there goes that theory.
Mmmm. Obviously somethng happens in the placenta to stop the damage or at least what is causing the damage. I wonder what it could be. Is something filtered out perhaps?

With this casual layman-like observations, it would seem that a mutagen cannot get passed on to the offspring. Unless of course one little mutagen causing substance is not filtered out and this doesn't cause the baby to be physically impaired in some way like those poor irradiated Iraqi babies. Maybe it can cause X-ray vision. How cool is that?

Maybe the baby will sprout little stubs on its back which over time reproducing with other humans who have also randomly grown little stubs on their backs could produce babies who will have even bigger stubs until after several hundred incredibly improbable coincidental mutations and random chance encounters to breed later, the stubs become wings and the baby can fly! Yes FLY! WOW. That would be totally cool. Man where are the flying babies?

Sry for that rant. I get sarcastic sometimes when I go off on one.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join