Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: WarminIndyThank you for the response.




What then is information?

It's information when it's not indoctrination. But you simply wouldn't understand.

What is information?


How does information cause an effect?

These are things you should be able to answer definitely if evolution is definite.

Information is derived from what's observed. It's that simple!

So the information in an organism is observed by the organism?

No - It's observed by us!

Have we observed every mutation from first non-organic species?

We could do the mine quoting or cherry picking, but there's too much out there to do that with.

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: WarminIndy

No reason to be reversed, you copy 000001110101010101 1k times them you mess up 000001101010101 and if it does not kill you it copies the new secuence until a new mutation occurs.

Yes, ok.

But Berkeley and New Science both say that reversals do occur.

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: MarsIsRed

There is no racism, but these are questions that come from a forum about the Neanderthal percentages in Europeans. I am 2.9%.

So... early humans bread with other early humans - what exactly is you're problem? God?

Well, some did. However, not the different species populations living in different biomes who mutated at different rates.

I'd like to take a moment to point out that evolution is not the answer to everything, its the best current answer to how life developed to be what it is today. I sensed possible confusion from the wording, so I felt I sshould set the record straight on that.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Have we observed every mutation from first non-organic species?

No - how on Earth would we do that? We weren't there! But that doesn't invalidate the logic behind it. Do you beg to differ?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Read your first link again it's just what I said, a mutation made an individual resistant by chance, not to be resistant, after all competitors die the individual is the only one that remains, hence once it propagates the species evolve, as the new bacteria in a mayoritary proportion have the code obtained by the progenitor by chance.

About reversals or not, I think you are not understanding well the thing happens randomly and nothing guides an individual to success.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
I'd like to take a moment to point out that evolution is not the answer to everything, its the best current answer to how life developed to be what it is today. I sensed possible confusion from the wording, so I felt I sshould set the record straight on that.

There are some people who think it does and believe it so militaristically that that will demand you believe or else.

That's kind of like the Middle Ages, I think. Believe or else.

I do think selective breeding does occur, because we do it all the time. We do it to horses, dogs, cats, slaves...you name it. People even do it in bars, on the beach, at home, in no-tell motels...

Selective breeding is intentional in humans and by humans. So they kind of prove that point.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I've never met anyone who blames the mountains or the rain or meteor showers on evolution. Which clearly says that evolution isn't the answer to everything. Science does its best though, and that best has brought us a long way.

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: WarminIndy

Read your first link again it's just what I said, a mutation made an individual resistant by chance, not to be resistant, after all competitors die the individual is the only one that remains, hence once it propagates the species evolve, as the new bacteria in a mayoritary proportion have the code obtained by the progenitor by chance.

About reversals or not, I think you are not understanding well the thing happens randomly and nothing guides an individual to success.

Again, did the mutations occur by information or not? Information can be either good or bad, but as DNA is compared as a super processor with the ability to introduce information but also accept information, then where does the information come from?

The dice can't land on snake eyes if the die isn't cast.

Information processing..that means that DNA has the capability and ability to not only introduce information, but to process information. I would think environmental reasons are information that DNA processes, and an organism within its environment must process information received from outside, such as differences in pH levels.

An outside influence must then introduce information. But let's say this, as evolution proposes that hydrogen atoms became attracted to each other, but an outside even such as lightning evoked a response, then information came from outside, not from inside. So the first mutation was not random. The lightning may have been a random event, but how long had there been lightning before the new whatever it was decided to suddenly mutate?

Random or environmental, which is it?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

I've never met anyone who blames the mountains or the rain or meteor showers on evolution. Which clearly says that evolution isn't the answer to everything. Science does its best though, and that best has brought us a long way.

Yeah, but there are some things science should have just left alone. Hence, the threat of nuclear annihilation.

There are some people out there though...

a reply to: WarminIndy

I read something posted earlier today "there is no bad science, only bad people". And if not for nukes, we Americans might be speaking Japanese right now.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

I read something posted earlier today "there is no bad science, only bad people". And if not for nukes, we Americans might be speaking Japanese right now.

The same holds true to religions.

Not just Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but Chernobyl. My grandfather was a POW in Bataan, that's kind of a sensitive thing for me to think about.

Science used for war technology is ancient, perhaps it is much better to go back to try to make gold from lead. At least the alchemists were trying to benefit society, even if they were giving the populations lead and mercury poisoning.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
3: Africans and Intuis, technically speaking, are both members of the same family - kind of like zebras and horses (all varieties) are members of the same family and can interbreed. Technically speaking, their distinct features make them separate species.

???.

Technically speaking, was that serious?

Humans, orang-utans, gorillas, chimps and bonobos are of the same "family"(great apes).

Unlike horses/zebras, modern humans are all of the exact same species, the only species of the "Homo" line that is not extinct. The only differences among modern humans are superficial, amounting to variety within the exact same species.

The horses/zebra comparison (different species) would probably be more like comparing homo sapiens/homo ergaster or some other homo species (there is some debate about whether neanderthals were a subspecies of sapiens). With no other species of "homo" existing, there is no genuine way to make such a comparison.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Lice shampoo is designed to kill the first time, therefore there is no need to use the shampoo a second time. I have never known a person to ever say "Oh, the lice weren't killed the first time, now there are multiple generations of lice now mutated to be resistant". Lice can be killed the first time, nullifying the argument. Once the lice are killed, it is impossible for the dead lice to mutate or breed.
What then is information?

That is a false dichotomy.

What would you think could account for Squirrels who bravely protect their young from rattlesnakes and thus suffer strikes from said snakes, having better immunity dependant on type and amount of rattle snakes in their area? There are other studies indicating that the venom itself is becoming stronger, to counteract this. The designer pushes a magical button somewhere? Or are you saying the designer foresaw squirrels and rattlers and planned for this from the beginning, via billions of years of biological evolution? Or they didn't evolve, just made that way? Something else?

Given that we know it happens, how would you introduce a "designer" here, in a way that is demonstrably necessary(ie. not an unnecessary complication) and that you can directly validate?

scientists found that resistance to rattler venom among California ground squirrels varies according to the local snake population density.

Squirrels from two areas where northern Pacific rattlesnakes are common-the rugged canyons near Sunol and hills near Winters-had high resistance to that particular snake's venom.

In the absence of rattlesnakes, squirrels' resistance fades-but slowly over tens of thousands of generations.

dateline.ucdavis.edu...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Have we observed every mutation from first non-organic species?

No - how on Earth would we do that? We weren't there! But that doesn't invalidate the logic behind it. Do you beg to differ?

OH, so you take it on simple faith that it did happen?

I'm sorry, that's not a good enough answer because you demand that of us. Unless you can show evidence, then you can't claim it....isn't that correct?

So in your view, evolution is faith based on little or no evidence from the beginning. Thank you.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

So in your view, evolution is faith based on little or no evidence from the beginning. Thank you.

Aah geez someones finally found us out....

I guess the scientists with their facts and evidence had just better go back to the drawing board and conjure up another theory just so we don't have to follow this gods rules because we hate him so much.

Damn you WarminIndy!

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Why has variety been removed from the classification scale? Yes, variety among humans is the result of selective breeding. I would agree with variety among humans, that would be phenotypes.

But have humans become resistant to snake bites? If we are the most highly evolved then we should have become resistant, except an above poster believes it was all randomly. So if it is random, then some people have mutated to not be susceptible to certain diseases.

Are we then like the bacteria that evolves, or are we a higher life form than bacteria and lice?

Why do SOME people become resistant to disease, but others don't? I don't disagree that bacteria can mutate, but could it be said that bacteria was designed to do that?

Of course, you would say there is no direct evidence that the Intelligence would do such a thing, but think of it this way, if the Intelligence did design and account for mutations, then every life form would live forever as an individual without the need to self-replicate, and if we were to live forever and be self-replicating, then where would we put the entire populace?

A system of checks and balances exists, but is that the result of random mutations? Nature itself ( I mean organic life forms that are not animalistic) is designed for checks and balances. Even in the human body there are checks and balances, but to fit it into the whole encompassing spectrum of all of nature, do the trees mutate to randomly fall on people? No, that would be absurd.

I think that one could say that bacteria and lice simply build up a tolerance, the same way that humans build up tolerances when they drink alcohol or take drugs. But no human yet has been randomly mutated to resist things in nature or what it does to itself.

In other words, man hasn't yet mutated, randomly or otherwise, to resist random events in nature. Go back the first response in this thread.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
But have humans become resistant to snake bites? If we are the most highly evolved then we should have become resistant, except an above poster believes it was all randomly. So if it is random, then some people have mutated to not be susceptible to certain diseases.

...the OP's knowledge of the ToE in a nutshell.....

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Prompted by a rabid youtube watcher who loves to scream at people who believe in Intelligent Design, I will ask the same question here and perhaps it can be answered by someone.

Questions:

1: Does every individual of any group of species mutate at the same rate as all members?

No, there is this thing called punctuated equilibrium. Not to mention the crocdile has stayed pretty constant since pretty much the time of the dinosaurs

2: If the definition of species is "members of a group who are capable of interbreeding" and species first began in a singular biome, then if there is another biome in which a species population resides, did the species in the biomes mutate at the same rate?

No

3: Given that biomes are environments and mutations occur because of environmental reasons, then how are Africans and Inuits the same species?

Out of Africa theory

4: As mutations lead to changes species-wide, so that a population in a biome becomes a different species, then the mutations in DNA that lead to different haplotypes, then are we all different species from each other?

No, because we can still interbreed. If humans didn't interconnect globally through technology and had stayed widely isolated from each other, we would have evolved into separate species though.

5: As mutations are designed for adaptation for survival within a biome or moving to a new biome, the first species of life had no predatory reasons to adapt for survival within the biome, then did original mutations occur solely within the original biome?

Mutations aren't designed for anything. They just happen. Sometimes they happen to be beneficial to the species' survival in that particular biome. Species with that mutation survive longer and pass that trait on to their kin.

6: As Natural Selection is the adaptation, then why do those who adapt, then go back to the state before adaptation?

This is confusing. Please give an example of what you are talking about here.

7: How many individual species were in the original biome?

Well the idea of a common ancestor means that there was probably just one. But that is more of a guess since we don't know how life began on this planet and therefore are unable to say where the first biome was.

I may come up with other questions, but these seem pertinent to me at the present. And please, I would like real answers and not assumptions. Don't tell me "we think" or "scientists suppose", because those are assumptions.

Everything I presented above is researchable and is the current leading conclusions given the evidence that we (scientists) currently have.

Prezbo

So you are saying to me "believe it or else"?

I asked questions but with no evidence actually proffered from people (except one or two), others indicated that they had faith in the lack of evidence.

See, that's the problem, you can't say that we have to offer evidence when your side has no evidence either of the original life forms.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Tchnology boosts evolution among human populations?

San Bushmen vs. Inuits.

Yes, I know Out of Africa

Multiregional vs. Out of Africa

Two competing hypothesis with same information, just different interpretations. So you are leaning toward Out of Africa? What is it about Out of Africa that causes you to be drawn to it when another scientific hypothesis is out there?