If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WBA)   Maryland approves biology textbook without creationism. Also examining geography textbooks without Atlantis, physics textbook without ESP   (thewbalchannel.com) divider line 982
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

8137 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Feb 2005 at 9:30 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



982 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-02-17 03:06:48 PM
walkingtall

Your argument is based on two fallacious beliefs about evolution.

First, you say that for evolution to be plausible, it has to explain, for example, how a fish's offspring spontaneously evolved to be able to breath air so it could travel on land. That would be a rather absurd theory, which is why no legitimate evolutionist would ever support it. Evolutionists cannot stress enough that visible evolutionary change in the vast majority of organisms is extremely gradual, occurring over vast periods of time. In between the first air-breathing offshoot of a fish were (and still are) transitional species that combined the ability to live in water with a limited ability to live on land. Over time, the progression results in the development of new species that have increased air-breathing capacity.

Second is your statement that evolutionary theory is based on the concept of "luck." Nothing can be further from the truth. "Luck" is randomness or chance. Evolution explains how species develop due to environmental stimuli; it does not advocate "luck," but predictable responses to such stimuli, like cold-weather animals adapting to live in that cold weather. It's only "luck" if you believe that anything in life that isn't guided by a divine hand is "luck."

Inaccurately describing evolutionary theory so as to make it look false or ridiculous does not strengthen your argument.
 
2005-02-17 03:07:15 PM
Walkingtall:

Redundancies in the genetic code have nothing to do with protecting us during our evolution. According to your rationale, we have evolved and made it this far because the same genetic code was written multiple times? How does that propell us forwarded or help us?

If you're talking about resistancies and information addition to genetic code, I don't think we're talking about redundancies anymore. We're talking about evolution.
 
2005-02-17 03:07:46 PM
You don't need faith in Evolution to assume that whatever gaps there are in the evidence will be filled eventually, because evolution has repeatedly been capable of correctly predicting. Evolution has passed the tests. Yes, like any other scientific theory, there's always a chance of something new showing up and proving it wrong, but as of yet, that hasn't happened.
 
2005-02-17 03:09:59 PM
i.e. mutations
 
2005-02-17 03:10:54 PM
That paragraph is exactly why evolution theory is false.
Walkingtall-------------------------------------
Mutations do not CREATE anything. They simply scramble what is already existing. To have new traits, code must be CREATED at some point. Like has been pointed out how does nature write code? There has never been an example of new code being written. I know all about the bacteria experiments both with being antibiotic resistance and the ability to use plastic but we are unable to prove this ability is new. We do not know enough about genetics to say this for a fact. It may be a new trait showing itself but that is a far cry for the code needed for this trait to manifest itself being written completely from scratch or even as an offshoot of existing code.
----------------------------------------------

Mutations can and do add new information. There are nucleotide insertions, and the alteration of one nucleotide can cause one protein to do a completely different job.

Again, you show your complete ignorance to basic biology.
 
2005-02-17 03:14:41 PM
True story:
Once upon a time, when I was in third grade, my Catechism (it's Sunday School for Catholics) teacher, who was a nun, taught my class how God made the world in seven days. After she finished, I was confused about something and raised my hand to ask a question. She called on me, and I asked her on which day did God create the dinosaurs? I was learning about them at school at the time, and I was fascinated with them. Anyway, my nun teacher got a strange look on her face, and very sternly asked me where I learned about such a ridiculous thing called dinosaurs?! I told her that I learned about them at school. She started yelling at me! My class was on the balcony of my church, and I remember that it grew quiet downstairs because of all the yelling my teacher was doing. I was almost in tears by the time she finished with, and I remember it verbatim, "What's more important to you - God or school?"

That is one of my most vivid memories as a child, and I will cherish it forever. Thank you, Sister Celine, for giving me my first independent thought. I am happy to say that their brainwashing failed.
 
2005-02-17 03:15:34 PM
JC Superstar:

Yes, and religion and the Gods the religions are based on have been consistently proven wrong. NOTHING EXISTS that even suggests GOD COULD EXIST. It is a completely HUMAN creation. Science deals with the natural world, something only the insane would argue does not exist (Descarte, who sold out eventually).

What have we found the proves God could exist? A bone? A particle? Some other tangible thing? No. Only an idea and a sh*7 ton of questions. Science can quantify. Math reflects nature. Religion reflects the insecure minds of people with no purpose.
 
2005-02-17 03:16:16 PM
[ Walkingtall ]-------------------------------------
You know I could almost go with this except for one fact. Let us say DNA did ride the back of RNA in the beginning. (which is insanity by the way if you learn a little biochemistry).
----------------------------------------------------

[ JC ]
Incorrect. In fact, it's the most widely accepted and well-supported argument yet. That doesn't make it right, but it's a lot more right than "God made magic and it appeared." I would be more than interested to hear your biochemical explaination though...


[ Walkingtall ]-------------------------------------
OK I give you that. That does not alter the fact that there is no mechanism for higher organisms to spontaneosly create traits. The first fish that crawled out of the water had to have evolved all the mechanisms necessary to breathe air. Not one at a time but fully functioning. I could even go with having both if you want to claim that but the trait had to come about before he could go on land. How was that code written? What combination of mutations could have made that come around. All evolutionists talk in terms of "fortuitous". That means that there was just plain luck involved. Luck is not scientific.
----------------------------------------------

I've already explained how that code was written. Slowly. Nucleotide by nucleotide. There are fish now that can breathe for short periods of time though their air bladders. Over the course of generations, this time could be increased, until the fish could survive indefinitely above ground.

Simple.
 
2005-02-17 03:18:19 PM
JackBach,

Yes, but God can't be disproven either. No omnipotent being can be disproven. I could invent a magical, invisible, dancing cow that's omnipotent, and nobody could disprove it.

So no, we can't disprove god. There's no real evidence that it exists, but we can't disprove it.
 
2005-02-17 03:18:50 PM
Chemical changes take place in living things all the time. Some of those changes affect our DNA. Birth, to use your terminology, involves DNA "gaining information" because the parents' genetic information is combined. Evolution occurs as new organisms are born generation after generation, over long periods of time.

Your arguments are dependent on likening DNA to man-made objects and concepts, in this case a "code" like troops use in wars. DNA and other biochemical components of living things work on a level that humans typically have no immediate control over. Sure DNA "writes itself;" if it didn't, we wouldn't be able to have offspring. It's not like writing a book.



Do you know anything about genetics? Sexual reproduction does not "rewrite and expand" DNA. Why would you even make this statement? Sexual reproduction combines half the traits of the father and half the traits of the mother. That is all. There is no net gain or loss in the DNA in the 3 individuals involved in this process. Our entire existence hinges on DNA being able to replicate EXACTLY trillions upon trillions of times. Any errors in replication and we cease to exist. This IS genetic fact. Cancer is nothing more then errors in replication. Please try to tell me that cancer is either an engine for evolution or a sign we are starting to evolve new traits as humans. If you can prove this I will buy your assertions. Chemical changes within an organism HAVE to happen in a certain order in a certain way or the whole organism dies. Every time without exception. These changes exist because of errors not because we are getting better and better.
 
2005-02-17 03:19:08 PM
I would love to spend the next 24 hrs arguing in circles with you guys, but it seems that this is just the typical creation bashing Know-it-all (mostly made up) crap thread.

I know you guys are wondering how DNA wrote itself and why it does NOT gain in complexity, so I accomplished my goal.

Later.
 
2005-02-17 03:19:23 PM
Walkingtall:

I applaude you for discussing this topic with us, but you seem to just make up scientific "facts." Perpetuating incorrect or virtually untested/unproven information does not help the human race come any closer to understanding wtf we're doing here. And definitely doesn't help your credibility.
 
2005-02-17 03:22:46 PM
walkingtall you are possibly the most ignorant person I have ever seen post in these evolution threads.

STFU. You don't know anything.
 
2005-02-17 03:24:58 PM
Sharkroy:

Good job! Keep comparing things that aren't comparable. Keep missing the scope and complexity of a thing like DNA. Keep attributing human characteristics to a process that humans didn't create.

The greatest way of proving you're wrong is to consistently and loudly claim that you're correct.
 
2005-02-17 03:26:03 PM
sharkroy:
I know you guys are wondering how DNA wrote itself and why it does NOT gain in complexity, so I accomplished my goal.

I was convinced as soon as you told me how airplanes were inspired by God via the Wright brothers. No need to bring this high-falutin' DNA stuff into it!
 
2005-02-17 03:27:08 PM
MegaDethHead

With a username like yours I can be assured you are a well of well thought out arguments. I have not seen you write anything of substance and simply make a stupid statement like this. Please enlighten me on what scientific fact in which I am mistaken.
 
2005-02-17 03:29:33 PM
Here is my argument for evolution:

Land based predators and land based prey developed differently to suit their different roles in nature. If you look at any land based predator i.e. the wolf, the tiger, the lion, etc. you will see that their eyes point forward. Their eyes are like this because the developed the need to see straight forward, to focus on their prey and attack it. The probably see the same view as humans, as we developed straight forward eyes for predatory hunting.

Land based prey developed "defensive" eyes, or eyes that can see to the sides. They have these eyes because a land based predator can trounce them very quickly. They see a broad scope so they can protect themselves better.

That's my argument for evolution.

Now for something totally different...

You have to remember one key thing about all religions that have a god. Man created the god(s). Why? Well I don't know that exactly but I think it has to do with man fearing for his own existence. You see, man is the only beast on this planet that fears for its own existance...and the only being that created a god for itself. You see one day man started to here voices in his head, we call this though now-a-days, but when primitive man heard his thoughts, they scared him and confused him.

So man created an omnipotent being(s) to help explain why he had these crazy voices in his head, telling him to do things. So this creation of an omnipotent being eventually lead to man using him as an excuse for morals, rules, and generally why things happened.

Something like:
How does lightning happen?
Zeus farted.

Also there is one more thing. Science and religion both change every once in a while. Like I saw above with the Earth being the center of the Universe, only now it is the Sun at the center of the solar system with the Earth going around it. Two thousand years ago people believed that there were multiple gods, now, in general, there is only one. In one thousand years, we may have made contact with extraterrestrials and who knows. May be all of our science and religion will be wrong.
 
2005-02-17 03:31:58 PM
walkingtall


You know I could almost go with this except for one fact. Let us say DNA did ride the back of RNA in the beginning. (which is insanity by the way if you learn a little biochemistry).

Hmmm. I know a little bit about biochemistry, and the people I work with don't seem to think I am insane. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain what you mean.

In any case, although I am nearly certain that RNA preceeded DNA, and that DNA is a descendant of earlier RNA predecessors "joining forces" (so to speak), I am almost equally as certain that earlier inorganic replicators existed before either of these.

OK I give you that. That does not alter the fact that there is no mechanism for higher organisms to spontaneosly create traits.

You're correct. In fact, if such a mechanism were discovered, we would know, almost for certain, that there was some fundamental problem with evolution. The way evolution is understood to work, the "spontaneous" appearance of a characteristic of gross phenotye is considered pretty much impossible. If such a thing were found, evolution as it is now understood would be conclusively disproven.



The first fish that crawled out of the water had to have evolved all the mechanisms necessary to breathe air. Not one at a time but fully functioning.

Done Actually done twice. The swim bladder in most fish helps to regulate bouyancy. One way for a fish to increase its bouyancy is to divert gasses inhaled via the gills into its swim bladder. To "dive," gasses are expelled or exhaled. In the lungfish, the swim bladder also serves as a "backup" set of lungs when the fish is on land. The mudskipper has a very different, but equally fascinating solution to life in a tidal environment.


I could even go with having both if you want to claim that but the trait had to come about before he could go on land.

I hope the above answered your question (assuming it was a sincere question and not a "stump the chump" question.)

How was that code written? What combination of mutations could have made that come around.

a mutation that makes the swim bladder just a little bit better at filtering gasses would mean the difference between life and death if the tide was out for maybe a few minutes. The offspring of the few proto-lungfish who could survive out of water for just a few minutes would be able to colonise bits of the shore that others of their species could not, as well as all the bits of the near shore sediments that the other proto-lungfish could.

Naturally, there would be variation among those individuals; some would be able to process gasses through their swim bladders for a lot longer, if necessary, and those few could live even further up the shore, where there is lots of food that no other lungfish can reach.

Seriously, the first land-dweller argument was answered something like 80 or 90 years ago. There is no mystery to this one at all.


All evolutionists talk in terms of "fortuitous". That means that there was just plain luck involved. Luck is not scientific.

Are you suggesting that accidents never happen?

But in any case, you're misunderstanding the use of the term "fortuitous". If I say it was "fortuitous" that some lungfish had swim bladders that could process gasses and allow flow of oxygen into the blood stream, what I mean is "if there had been no individuals with that ability, that lineage would have died out during some unusually low tide. That's no more unscientific than saying "if John hadn't been so tall, he wouldn't have bumped his head on the door frame." It's simply a recognition that variation exists in all characteristics in all populations, and some variants have particular advantages over others in specific environments.

If someone said "evolution is just plain luck", they would be mistaken. Although one can call a survivor of a group in which many dies "lucky", that doesn't mean that luck alone was involved. One might say that the guy who found the parachute and bailed out before a crash is more "lucky" than someone who didn't, but that doesn't mean that parachutes function solely on the basis of "luck".

I hope that cleared up some of your questions.
 
2005-02-17 03:31:58 PM
Alrighty folks this is it:

let us examine sickle cell enemia. Sickle cell enemia is a genetic variation, which, if the carrier has both the genes from mom and dad, will result in the deblitating illness. However, should you only posess one of the sickle cell genes you will have a slight enemic condition as well as a resistance to malaria. What does this mean? It means that somewhere along the evolutionary path Africans developed the sickle cell gene as a advantage against malaria. As a result you can see the rates of sickle cell fall amongst blacks in the US, where as in Africa they remain constant.
 
2005-02-17 03:34:52 PM
One more thing.

/high fives to Walking Tall.
 
2005-02-17 03:36:49 PM
Beonarri:

Yes, but at least science has something to show for itself. The best the creationists can come up with is to give God the credit for evolution, just like everyting else. What a crock. The same argument, augmented to fit every confrontation.

"God did it" doesn't prove anyting, unless of course you have it on tape.
 
2005-02-17 03:37:29 PM
walkingtall

You ask this:

Do you know anything about genetics?

Then you say this:

Our entire existence hinges on DNA being able to replicate EXACTLY trillions upon trillions of times. Any errors in replication and we cease to exist. This IS genetic fact.

I know this is pointless, but it has to be said. I'm sure you can not comprehend it. You are wrong. It is you that doesn't understand genetics. If you did you wouldn't make such an asinine claim.
 
2005-02-17 03:37:43 PM

2005-02-17 11:55:18 AM walkingtall


So we're left with one theory that has alot of support, but has a few holes, and another theory that has absolutely no support and is premised on something that can never be supported.

You seem to forget that every single person that has ever lived will get the answer to this question. If we stand before God after we die then you evolutionists are in trouble. I know there are evolutionists/theists but I believe they are simply sitting on the fence trying to have it both ways because the evidence points to one or the other not both. So if I am wrong during that last second before death when darkness approaches and I realize my entire existence meant nothing more then being an expendable, useless individual in the process of evolution then I will know you were right. If not, then you are going to have a lot to answer for.


I see it this way. If we were created by god, than god gave us all traits we possess, including logic. If god is going to punish people for using their logic to come to the logical conclusion that he probably doesn't exist, instead of second guessing themselves, than god is evil. Thus, one way or another, the christian idea of god is wrong.

If god is truly benevolent and all knowing, he will understand that his creations are using their abilities that he gave them to come to the logical conclusion he probably does not exist. He would be supportive of this: On the other hand, he would not be supportive of his creations limiting themselves through fear and second guessing, as christians do.

So really, atheists and agnostics get to have our cake and eat it to. Either we're right, or christianity is wrong.
 
2005-02-17 03:39:54 PM
Labrador mates with Jack Russell. Produces offspring with vastly different traits, and often behaviours, than the original parents. It's also still able to breed.

Anyway, point being it doesn't need to be DNA mutations that produce vast differences in a population. (I believe a mutation happens roughly once in every 10 to the 6th divisions, and an advantageous one about once in every 10 to the twelfth).

If you're looking for the branching of a new species, take a cross breed, then kill off all it's parent types, then isolate it for a while. This is assuming that both parent types bred enough of the cross breeds that a population would survive against the new environmental pressure.
 
2005-02-17 03:40:00 PM
[ Walkingtall ]----------------------------------------------
Our entire existence hinges on DNA being able to replicate EXACTLY trillions upon trillions of times. Any errors in replication and we cease to exist. This IS genetic fact.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely incorrect. Every time a human cell replicates, on average, I think that there are four errors that don't get fixed. That leaves a lot of room for mutation.
 
2005-02-17 03:42:36 PM
walkingtall,

would you care to explain sickle cell enemia, and it advantages and prevalence in malaria stricken africa vs. its decline in the US?
 
2005-02-17 03:44:01 PM
if we teach Creationism, which myth do we teach. I know Creationsist like to believe that Jesus and the Bible are the only thing in the world, but they're not. I don't care about Jesus at all. Evolution has hundreds of sources, Creationsism has one. Anyone who has written a research paper in school knows you need more than one source. Also, Jesus wasn't white, so there!
 
2005-02-17 03:44:39 PM
JackBach

I agree, science is at least trying, and they have results.
 
2005-02-17 03:44:41 PM
sean007:

let us examine sickle cell enemia. Sickle cell enemia is a genetic variation, which, if the carrier has both the genes from mom and dad, will result in the deblitating illness. However, should you only posess one of the sickle cell genes you will have a slight enemic condition as well as a resistance to malaria. What does this mean? It means that somewhere along the evolutionary path Africans developed the sickle cell gene as a advantage against malaria. As a result you can see the rates of sickle cell fall amongst blacks in the US, where as in Africa they remain constant.

As an addendum, the condition is an environmental adaptation which is advantageous in one environment and a detriment in another. Having it is not "better" or "worse" than not having it; that varies depending on the environment you are in. And, this is a very simple mutation involving a small change in just one protein, which causes a change in the shape of blood cells. That is, tiny change in genetic code --> resistance to malaria.

This is actually an excellent example of a medical finding based on evolutionary thought that walkingtall was asking for earlier.
 
2005-02-17 03:47:18 PM
ipsiad,

are you agreeing with me, or walkingtall?
 
2005-02-17 03:48:22 PM
This has nothing to do with the argument, but here's the top ten posters of this thread (and their post count)

walkingtall 38
JC Superstar 33
pnaimoli 29
whatshisname 25
barjockey 25
pshaw 20
Prospero424 19
Meatros 19
The_Devil's_Due 15
lixivium 15

/has excel and is bored....
 
2005-02-17 03:50:13 PM
if we teach Creationism, which myth do we teach. I know Creationsist like to believe that Jesus and the Bible are the only thing in the world, but they're not. I don't care about Jesus at all. Evolution has hundreds of sources, Creationsism has one. Anyone who has written a research paper in school knows you need more than one source. Also, Jesus wasn't white, so there!

Here's a proposed cirriculum:

Teach science.

Then say to your students, "Of course this all pretty hard to understand, so if you're having trouble with it you can go believe whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. It really is a lot easier."
 
2005-02-17 03:50:14 PM
sean007

let us examine sickle cell enemia. Sickle cell enemia is a genetic variation, which, if the carrier has both the genes from mom and dad, will result in the deblitating illness. However, should you only posess one of the sickle cell genes you will have a slight enemic condition as well as a resistance to malaria. What does this mean? It means that somewhere along the evolutionary path Africans developed the sickle cell gene as a advantage against malaria. As a result you can see the rates of sickle cell fall amongst blacks in the US, where as in Africa they remain constant.

For me this was the final nail in the coffin as far as evolution is concerned. To use this as the ONE example of positive human evolution means that in a very high percentage this mutation gives a very bad disease. The benefits do not outweigh the negatives in the population as a whole. If this is the best evolutionists can do then it just cannot be true.
 
2005-02-17 03:51:48 PM
Wake n Bake, that brought a tear to my eye
 
2005-02-17 03:51:49 PM
King Keepo

Labrador mates with Jack Russell...

...and every breakable and/or chewable object lower than about five feet from the floor spontaneously combusts out of self-defense.
 
2005-02-17 03:53:23 PM
For me this was the final nail in the coffin as far as evolution is concerned. To use this as the ONE example of positive human evolution means that in a very high percentage this mutation gives a very bad disease. The benefits do not outweigh the negatives in the population as a whole. If this is the best evolutionists can do then it just cannot be true.

Yet it very clearly contradicts your previous statment that every error in DNA replication causes us the "cease to exist" and that it's "genetic fact".

So do you stand by that claim or admit that you were wrong?
 
2005-02-17 03:57:03 PM
I see it this way. If we were created by god, than god gave us all traits we possess, including logic. If god is going to punish people for using their logic to come to the logical conclusion that he probably doesn't exist, instead of second guessing themselves, than god is evil. Thus, one way or another, the christian idea of god is wrong.

If god is truly benevolent and all knowing, he will understand that his creations are using their abilities that he gave them to come to the logical conclusion he probably does not exist. He would be supportive of this: On the other hand, he would not be supportive of his creations limiting themselves through fear and second guessing, as christians do.


Again logically I could go with this argument if God had never made himself known and left us completely in the dark. Not only did he not do that but He has given us ample opportunity to recognize his existence. People putting their heads in the sand as many people in this thread do on a daily basis is not God's fault. He gave us the free will to believe or not. There is ample evidence of His existence if you are willing to open your eyes to the possibility. Right now you are only hearing it from another human. One day you will stand before God and explain to Him why you chose not to at least explore the possibility and not only that but actively seek to destroy the faith of others. Obviously your arguments about His not existing will be kind of moot at that point. I wish I could be a fly on the wall as people answer those questions but judgement is the ultimate in a personal experience. It will just be you and Him. Nobody else.
 
2005-02-17 03:57:17 PM
We're waiting
 
2005-02-17 03:57:18 PM
To use this as the ONE example of positive human evolution means that in a very high percentage this mutation gives a very bad disease. The benefits do not outweigh the negatives in the population as a whole. If this is the best evolutionists can do then it just cannot be true.

YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU SPEAK OF. Actually the vast majority who carry the sickle cell variation experience NO negative side affects. It is the small percentage that carry BOTH genes that we lump into a category as having sickle cell. The percentages of those who posess the gene vs. the percentage of those who exibit its debilitating effects are quit striking. And they refute your post.

But hey, why let facts get in your way, right?
 
2005-02-17 03:58:54 PM
Please jebus, make them stop!
 
2005-02-17 03:59:04 PM
...I'm happy for Maryland. That textbook is an awesome Bio textbook, filled with several different curriculum options.

It's also sad how neither side of the people arguing here really understands much Biology. *sighs*
 
2005-02-17 04:00:46 PM
[ Walkingtall ] ----------------------------------------------
For me this was the final nail in the coffin as far as evolution is concerned. To use this as the ONE example of positive human evolution means that in a very high percentage this mutation gives a very bad disease. The benefits do not outweigh the negatives in the population as a whole. If this is the best evolutionists can do then it just cannot be true.
--------------------------------------------------------------
[ JC ]
It's becoming clear to me that you're just not intersted in anything that refutes your religious beliefs. You just stated why sickle cell anemia is such a strong piece of evidence for evolution. It's a disadvantage in almost every population on earth, and, what would you know, it's very rare in all of those populations. It's an advantage only in areas with high levels of malaria, and, just as evolution would predict, it's very high in exactly those areas.

If God created humans just as they are, then why didn't he come up with a better method of avoiding malaria? Does he just hate Africans?
 
2005-02-17 04:01:27 PM
Yet it very clearly contradicts your previous statment that every error in DNA replication causes us the "cease to exist" and that it's "genetic fact".

So do you stand by that claim or admit that you were wrong?



I have never put forward replication errors exist. They simply must be very very rare for life to exist. Evolution uses mass replication errors as an engine to create new traits and this does not even make sense. Half of our biological complexity goes into making sure replication happens EXACTLY every time and recovering and dealing with the errors that do happen. Please show me the error in this statement. Please show how life could exist with a 50% replication error rate. Or any error rate above the miniscule one that exists in real life. Even those miniscule ones have negative repercussions that life has to deal with.
 
2005-02-17 04:01:53 PM
Here we go,

In America, where there is no threat from malaria, Sickle cell variation rates are dropping. Why? because it presents no advantage in the US. In africa where malaria is still prevalent the rates have remain constant.

The essence of evolution: the trait that ceases to be advantageous ceases to replicate.
 
2005-02-17 04:05:52 PM
Shhheit. He's still in the denial phase.
 
2005-02-17 04:07:18 PM
Before:

Any errors in replication and we cease to exist. This IS genetic fact.

Now:

Please show how life could exist with a 50% replication error rate.

It seems your standards of successful replication have dropped a bit.
 
2005-02-17 04:08:26 PM
Can we Ex-communicate this blockhead already?
 
2005-02-17 04:09:22 PM
sean007: are you agreeing with me, or walkingtall?

Isn't it clear? walkingtall won, he converted me. ;-)

I was definitely agreeing with you; I was using your example to counter walkingtall's assertion that tiny genetic mutations couldn't bring about significant survival advantages.
 
2005-02-17 04:13:14 PM
Can we Ex-communicate this blockhead already?

You have to admit. He's tenacious. It's like there are 10 guys around him kicking him in the ribs, and he still has the tenacity to reach up and give us the finger.

Oh well, kick away.
 
2005-02-17 04:15:42 PM
The_Devil's_Due:

You have to admit. He's tenacious. It's like there are 10 guys around him kicking him in the ribs, and he still has the tenacity to reach up and give us the finger.

Heh... I like your analogy.
 
Displayed 50 of 982 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report