Evolution Test!

[Trumble]

Every person in this world including you have blind faith in every day of life..
Let me prove it..

Say you go to a restaurant for dinner. You order lots of stuffs and food comes to your desk. You take all the cooked food blindly. You have faith on the cook that he did not poison your food.

Say you go to doctor for treatment. And the doctor tested your lots of thing and gave you some medicine and instruction than what you will do. You will blindly follow that doctor’s commands. Don’t you? There are so many things like this.

I disagree also. Neither example has anything to do with 'blind faith'. Both are examples of perfectly rational decisions on the basis of the known facts.

In the first instance your (admittedly subconcious) assessment is likely to be based on the assumption that the chef has no motive to poison your food while he has every motive to keep serving good food to customers and earn his living. You are hungry. If, however, your testimony had put the chef in jail for the last 20 years and he had just got out, you would be unlikely to eat where he was cooking!

As to the doctor, he has spent years studying medicine and you have not. While you cannot be certain his opinion is right you know he is so much more likely to be right than you (unless you happen to be a doctor as well) it would be totally irrational not to follow his advice. It would not be irrational to seek a second opinion, and that's what many people do on occasion.

 

[MSalman]

I am do not know much about evolution so please pardon my lack of knowledge

the main problem that I have with evolution is have to do with the delay. If we go back to beginning then natural selection could not acquire something that it did not have, which it needed (for selection process) to evolve one thing to another because there is nothing else exist beside what it has; so where did the extra things come from? If it always had what it needed then what took it so long?

For example, If i want to drink sweet water but I only have water and there is no other place to get the sugar from, no matter how many years I try different possibilities I cannot make sweet water. However, If i can make sweet water, it follows I have the gradients which are required to make it; therefore there must not be any delay.

A similar logic can be applied to prove that matter is not eternal.

 

[ranma1/2]

I am do not know much about evolution so please pardon my lack of knowledge

NP, i would recommend going to a good website for some basic info on evolution.http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
This site is from a well known university and goes about it in a pretty friendly and simple manner.

the main problem that I have with evolution is have to do with the delay. If we go back to beginning then natural selection could not acquire something that it did not have, which it needed (for selection process) to evolve one thing to another because there is nothing else exist beside what it has; so where did the extra things come from? If it always had what it needed then what took it so long?

Im not clear on what your questoin is here. Are you asking how did different traits come about? The site should go into it, howeve to be real breif, we are ruled for the most part by our dna. This dna pretty much creates any traits we have. Due to imperfect replication their can be Positive, negative and neutral mutations. Positivie ones are selected in , neg out, and neutral do neither. Its these positivie mutations that give creatures an advantage and thus the approiapte structures can form naturally.

For example, If i want to drink sweet water but I only have water and there is no other place to get the sugar from, no matter how many years I try different possibilities I cannot make sweet water. However, If i can make sweet water, it follows I have the gradients which are required to make it; therefore there must not be any delay.

Still confused to your question but it seems that maybeyou think evolutoin is guided by desire? Its not. Perhaps a better anaolgy is.
everyone needs water but not everyone can drink sugar. Those that can drink sugar have an advantage and have a better chance of surviving to reproduce.That mutation is then spread throughtthe population.


A similar logic can be applied to prove that matter is not eternal.

ya lost me on that last one.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum dr trax, you're poll isn't very good. Some people might believe in some parts of evolution, but not in other parts. Things aren't always that black & white.
(P.S: are you the same docter trax from Idawah forum?)

 

[i_m_tipu]

Sorry I am not regular. Thanks for your interesting answer. I love intellectual things.
Ok here we go..

"he doesnt want to be arrested, hes trying to keep his job, theres no reason to poison you, hes not an assain for the EEC

In the first instance your (admittedly subconscious) assessment is likely to be based on the assumption that the chef has no motive to poison your food while he has every motive to keep serving good food to customers and earn his living. You are hungry. If, however, your testimony had put the chef in jail for the last 20 years and he had just got out.

So what. What a chef gone a do and what not is totally chef’s part. Do any tell how other gone a lead his life... never. Any unseen and future activities of any individuals are unknown to others.

we base that the cook likely didnt poison it on past experience among other things

You would be unlikely to eat where he was cooking!

A person never thinks also he has no intention to judge whether there is poison on his food or not. Why??? Because it is very much unlikely that why it should be called “I have faith on chef that he may not poison my food”.

I do not find any better logics for not to call it “faith on chef”. More stronger point can be found in case of doctor.

I believe any true logical person surely call it “logical blind faith”. If the reason of faith explain in good understandable logics can be called “logical blind faith”.

Human has limited knowledge on limited subject during his life time. He takes help from others, he has faith on others from whom he is or he suppose to take help, he put his faith on his Creator/hopes/luck/ and thus a Human survives and developed himself in his short period of life.

A person whether he is Muslim or Non Muslim or whatever he should have “logical blind faith”. Not illogical blind faith. He should try at least

If you came into the restraunt and found everyone dead from eating the special "spaceballs" you would be on blind faith thinking if you ate it too you would be fine..

It should be called illogical blind faith.

 

[ranma1/2]

....

So what. What a chef gone a do and what not is totally chef’s part. Do any tell how other gone a lead his life... never. Any unseen and future activities of any individuals are unknown to others.

The point is that it is not blind faith. Its faith based on evidence (thus not blind) Likewise i have faith that the chair im going to sit on or bought will work. (based on similar evidence)

....
A person never thinks also he has no intention to judge whether there is poison on his food or not. Why??? Because it is very much unlikely that why it should be called “I have faith on chef that he may not poison my food”.

I do not find any better logics for not to call it “faith on chef”. More stronger point can be found in case of doctor.

I believe any true logical person surely call it “logical blind faith”. If the reason of faith explain in good understandable logics can be called “logical blind faith”.

Human has limited knowledge on limited subject during his life time. He takes help from others, he has faith on others from whom he is or he suppose to take help, he put his faith on his Creator/hopes/luck/ and thus a Human survives and developed himself in his short period of life.

A person whether he is Muslim or Non Muslim or whatever he should have “logical blind faith”. Not illogical blind faith. He should try at least

It should be called illogical blind faith.

Ya kind a lost me with that.
Just to clarify. To me blind faith is faith on something without evidence.
I would also consider faith the faith that your food isnt poisoned to be different from the faith that if you pray to some god you will be healed.

Coudl you clarify what ou mean by logical /illogical blind faith?

 

[i_m_tipu]

The point is that it is not blind faith. Its faith based on evidence (thus not blind) Likewise i have faith that the chair im going to sit on or bought will work. (based on similar evidence )

Just to clarify. To me blind faith is faith on something without evidence .

Let me say it again say you seat on a fast food shop a boy come with burger and you take all the food. Let me clear it to you. The meaning of evidence is differ from meaning of judgment or logics. judgment or logics can be change or can be wrong but evidence mean something real fact.

Come on tell me what evidence you have that the food isn’t poisoned. You do not have any evidence .

Max people usually judge below two things before went a shop for taking food.

1. The shop does not have strange looking or it has reputation. The appearance of the shop must earn your faith in order force you enter the shop.
2. People taking food inside the shop happily. So it will earn your faith on chef/others possible person that he may not poison your food or no harm may not happen to you.

And based on above logics/judgment you take food blindly. Here we found clearly that the reason of this faith explain in good understandable logics.

Coudl you clarify what ou mean by logical /illogical blind faith?

I guess I explain it earlier.

If the reason of faith explain in good understandable logics can be called “logical blind faith”.

If the reason of faith cannot explain in good understandable logics can be called “illogical blind faith”.

I would also consider faith the faith that your food isnt poisoned to be different from the faith that if you pray to some god you will be healed.

Yes I know it. And that is another debate.
Think you believe there is no one creates you. I believe I am created.
I have many logics behind of my faith. And I believe you also have. Now who is correct?

If the reason of faith explain in good understandable logics can be called “logical blind faith”.

I give you one logics/judgment behind my faith. I don’t find anything around me uncreated (not a single tiny thing) and no one could ever claim with evidence that he know something which is uncreated. I see only very few space compare to the world imagine about the whole universe. To believe all the thing come into existence by change is “illogical blind faith” to me.

 

[ranma1/2]

sounds pretty much like a redefinition project.

 

[Azy]

I think it was David Hume who essentially killed off all philosophy by realising that we can't know anything about anything except for that which we are personally experiencing at the current moment in time. Even then you can't really extend that to what you can see or feel, as you have to assume that your brain is providing you with an accurate interpretation of reality.

 

[jyry]

Evolution.

Why the Bible speaks only a time from Adam and Eve who, btw, who was capable of speaking fluently and gave names to every animals and so on.. Where are dinosaurus? What creatures were our ancestors? Some kind of project that went wrong before god found the way to make a nowadays man?

Why is it hard to believe evolution? What about dog with two head? Isn't that enough to prove that mutation is possible? Some mutations have produced a life, some are bad - like cancer. So why is it impossible to believe that everything started from atoms - like we all have been made.

If organism cannot change and grow what about mitose and meiose? Human start to grow from small cell(s), which start to multiply and so on. Isn't this enough to prove that cells and organism can develop?

If we need a god for pregnancy - it's a miracle waiting a baby - does this mean that our scientists, who can create life or dublicating living things in a testtube, are becoming gods themselves?

Or curing diseases, manipulating genes, recognize the malfunctions, bad genes.. Why these all things are possible?

Why our universum is expanding? If god put all stars and planets on the right posession, why universum is changing all the time?

And if god makes miracles nowadays like some people says, why doesn't a god help people who are suffering famine? Or help innocence people who are under attack in a war?

And where dog disappeared? God was among people all those thousends of years and told us how we must live and suddenly disappeared? Why?

 

[جوري]

No mutation known to man causes 'speciation'
a dog or a person with two heads, is nothing more than maldevelopment during the embryogenesis, what is known as Craniopagus, thoracopagus or omphalopagus depending on where in the body it has occured... The union can be in the frontal, transverse, or in the sagittal plane...most severe mutations end up aborted, those that make it to term, have to undergo extensive surgery to survive, and mostly die shortly thereafter..

I haven't seen in any scientific journal a mutation, be it silent, nonsense, frameshift, even acrocentric break in chromosomes to cause anything short of disease, a malfunction, or death!

To get back as to why it is so hard to believe?
I suppose having such huge leaps of faith in science is even worst than having them in religion!

Beyond that I think this topic has been discussed here Ad nauseam, I recommend you use the search button, before rehashing your oh so learned buddies linear track of reasoning, especially when it has nothing to do with modern science as we know it..

cheers!

 

[ranma1/2]

looks like PA is under a 3rd name now. oh well.
Yes no 1 mutation causes speciation.

 

[جوري]

looks like PA is under a 3rd name now. oh well.

yeah.. do you have a problem with that?

Yes no 1 mutation causes speciation.

Glad you are keeping au courant of scientific trends!

cheers

 

[MustafaMc]

I haven't seen in any scientific journal a mutation, be it silent, nonsense, frameshift, even acrocentric break in chromosomes to cause anything short of disease, a malfunction, or death!

To get back as to why it is so hard to believe?
I suppose having such huge leaps of faith in science is even worst than having them in religion!

Yes, this one fact totally escapes evolutionists. Genetic mutations, the essential process for the creation of genetic diversity for natural selection to exploit, is a destructive process that renders individuals less - not more - fit to survive. Of all of the various species that were exposed to radiation, how many favorable mutations were created as a result of the nuclear disasters at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Chernobyl? How many superior species have evolved?

You and I can see the "huge leaps of faith" that evolutionists take, yet they accept the theory in toto because it does not include an unprovable element - the active participation of a Creator.

 

[Trumble]

You and I can see the "huge leaps of faith" that evolutionists take, yet they accept the theory in toto because it does not include an unprovable element - the active participation of a Creator.

No, 'evolutionists' don't do that. There is no 'leap of faith'. They accept the theory because it is the scientific theory that best fits the facts. You could debate for years (as people have) as to how good or otherwise that fit may be, but the simple fact is that is no other scientific theory that comes close.. or is even remotely plausible. Unless the whole nature of science is redefined God cannot form part of a scientific theory. If evolution is rejected in favour of creationism or ID then science itself is being rejected, at least in relation to that particular question. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but it should be recognised that that is what must happen.

 

[MustafaMc]

No, 'evolutionists' don't do that. There is no 'leap of faith'. They accept the theory because it is the scientific theory that best fits the facts.

I contend, there is a huge leap of faith in Naturalistic Evolution to go from a unicellular prokaryotic common ancestor to a complex higher animal with bilateral symmetry all by an undirected process of natural selection and genetic drift acting upon extremely rare, favorable genetic mutations and genetic recombinations. An analogy is to see a video of man walking on the moon and to compare how he got there to an extension of an infant crawling. One can't say that man used the same basic process as a baby crawling to get to the point where he was walking on the moon - it just took him a really, really long time to do it. As Neil Armstrong once said, "That's one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind".

You could debate for years (as people have) as to how good or otherwise that fit may be, but the simple fact is that is no other scientific theory that comes close.. or is even remotely plausible.

I don't disagree with you that there is no good alternative scientic theory for the origin of the species except to say that macro evolution is more speculation/guestimation than it is a scientifically supportable theory (IMHO).

Unless the whole nature of science is redefined God cannot form part of a scientific theory. If evolution is rejected in favour of creationism or ID then science itself is being rejected, at least in relation to that particular question. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but it should be recognised that that is what must happen.

I am not saying that belief in a Creator should be part of a scientifically provable theory for the origin of the species, or even that Creationism per se should be taught in secular schools. However, I have a major problem with taking an unsound, "so-called" scientific theory and presenting it as a well known fact. I have no problem with stating the basic principles of evolution if it is left open-ended admitting that there are gaps, or parts of macro evolution that can't be adequately explained. I also don't see a problem with stating at that time, "Some people believe that a previously existing Higher Power had a hand in this process; however, this can neither be proven nor disproven."

 

[ranma1/2]

Genetic mutations, the essential process for the creation of genetic diversity for natural selection to exploit, is a destructive process that renders individuals less - not more - fit to survive.

and this is something many creationists dont understand either.
mutations occure many ways not just rhought radiation.
Mutations can be positive, negative or neutral. It can render them more fit (pos) less fit (neg) or be neutral. This is a fact. This has been observed.

 

[جوري]

Yes, this one fact totally escapes evolutionists. Genetic mutations, the essential process for the creation of genetic diversity for natural selection to exploit, is a destructive process that renders individuals less - not more - fit to survive. Of all of the various species that were exposed to radiation, how many favorable mutations were created as a result of the nuclear disasters at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Chernobyl? How many superior species have evolved?

You and I can see the "huge leaps of faith" that evolutionists take, yet they accept the theory in toto because it does not include an unprovable element - the active participation of a Creator.

That is essentially what you get with lay people who browse various google sites, and deem themselves scientists!

When you have a relentless headache, do you ask for help on the net or do you seek professional help?..

Some blogger, can go browse various google sites and read all about GBM's and deem your headache a grade 4 astrocytoma, you'd be a fool to take that with anything other than a grain of salt.

A headache is a very nondescript manifestation of anything from a buzzing bee to blunt head trauma to cancer..

Any craft that requires some thought, whether it be teaching theology to astro-physics will have its savants and skeptics.. what I don't enjoy however is this random quotations or pieces oh so 'authoritatively written' or references to various sites, when one can't tie in its contents to topic, as if to pass along a 'pearl' that seems to convey no meaning whatsoever... It gets dull after a while!

 

[MustafaMc]

Mutations can be positive, negative or neutral. It can render them more fit (pos) less fit (neg) or be neutral. This is a fact. This has been observed.

Although I admit that not all mutations are deleterious, I contend that the frequency of favorable mutations are extremely rare with the advantage most often limited to an altered environment that decreases the fitness of the unmutated allele. I further contend that most mutations that are perpetuated over time are recessive - meaning that the unmutated "wild-type" allele is fully functional with only one copy. That is the reason that breeding between closely related humans often yields children born with birth defects.

About 25 years ago I taught genetics lab to undergraduate students. A major aspect of this course was conducting a genetic experiment with Drosophila melangaster, the fruit fly. An example of this experiment, http://bioweb.wku.edu/courses/Biol114/Vfly1.asp Each student was given a wild-type stock and a mutation stock that I, as the teacher, had to maintain over time. The mutation stocks were invariably more difficult to maintain over multiple generations. One can easily imagine that a fly with vestigial or curly wings would not be able to fly around and find the over-ripe banana.

 

[MustafaMc]

I came upon this excellent website that does a superb job of explaining some of the principles that I have posted. I encourage everyone to read the whole article from which I have quoted excerpts.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-mutations.asp

by Dr. Gary Parker began his teaching career as a non-Christian and evolutionist.

Quotes:
The modern evolutionist believes that new traits come about by chance, by random changes in genes called “mutations,” and not by use and disuse....Mutations are certainly real. They have profound effects on our lives. And, according to the neo-Darwinian evolutionists, mutations are the raw material for evolution...But is that possible? Can mutations produce real evolutionary changes? Don’t make any mistakes here. Mutations are real; they’re something we observe; they do make changes in traits. But the question remains: do they produce evolutionary changes?

The answer seems to be: “Mutations, yes. Evolution, no.” In the last analysis, mutations really don’t help evolutionary theory at all. There are three major problems or limits (and many minor ones) that prevent scientific extrapolation from mutational change to evolutionary change.

(1) Mathematical challenges. Problem number one is the mathematical. ... Fortunately, mutations are very rare. They occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (10^7, a one followed by seven zeroes)....The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 10^7 x 10^7, or 10^14....What about trying for four related mutations? One in 10^28. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. And we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog. Four mutations don’t even make a start toward any real evolution....

(2) Upward or downward? Even more serious is the fact that mutations are “going the wrong way” as far as evolution is concerned. Almost every mutation we know is identified by the disease or abnormality that it causes. Creationists use mutations to explain the origin of parasites and disease, the origin of hereditary defects, and the loss of traits. In other words, time, chance, and random changes do just what we normally expect: tear things down and make matters worse. Using mutations to explain the breakdown of existing genetic order (creation-corruption) is quite the opposite of using mutations to explain the build up of genetic order (evolution). Clearly, creation-corruption is the most direct inference from the effects of mutations that scientists actually observe.

...Evolutionists recognize, of course, the problem of trying to explain “onward and upward” evolution on the basis of mutations that are harmful at least 1000 times more often than they are helpful. No evolutionist believes that standing in front of X-ray machines would eventually improve human beings.

(3) Mutations point back to creation. Mathematics and genetic load are huge problems for evolution, but the biggest reason mutations cannot lead to evolution is an extremely simple one. It’s so simple, I’m almost afraid to say it. But really, mutations presuppose creation. After all, mutations are only changes in genes that already exist.

Most mutations are caused by radiation or replication errors. But what do you have to have before you can have a mutation? Obviously, the gene has to be there first, before the radiation can hit it or before it can make a copying mistake. In one sense, it’s as simple as that: the gene has to be there before it can mutate. All you get as a result of mutation is just a varied form of an already-existing gene, i.e., variation within kind.

To make evolution happen—or even to make evolution a scientific theory—evolutionists need some kind of “genetic script writer” (in other words a Creator) to increase the quantity and quality of genetic information. Mutations are just “typographic errors” that occur as genetic script is copied. Mutations have no ability to compose genetic sentences, and thus no ability to make evolution happen at all.