I agree with your post. It is a matter of faith. Atheists choose to believe that evolution was/is not controlled by a Higher Power or Intelligent Design; whereas, believers choose to believe that God directed evolution IF that was how we came to be. From my perspective there is no proof available to prove either side wrong.
Creationists dealt a blow
- Thread starter root
- Start date
- Replies 395
- Views 60K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
- Status
ranma1/2
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 1,095
- Reaction score
- 43
Science is about getting to the answer. it may make you feel good to think you have it and you may ignore evidence that suggests your wrong but with science it says ok this seems to contradict what we though so lets rethink this.
Its like someone saying that they know the answer 100% although they have little or no evidence to back their story,
and someone saying that they are pretty sure that they know it based off of the evidence and they will correct themselves as needed.
Sure it may feel good following the first guy but you wont likely get far.
ranma1/2
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 1,095
- Reaction score
- 43
pretty well said and as you point out, you can be a theist and believe in evolution.
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
That is not a satisfactory answer. It will get you a zero on a test.
There are headings of mutations which I gave you to look up in your wikipdia-- once you cut and pasted them for some reason you couldn't understand what they mean or didn't bother read!--- an example of what I am expecting from you for instance -- is say you take a nonsense mutation-- you go on to explain to me that it is a mutation in a base in the DNA that prematurely stops the translation of messenger RNA resulting in a polypeptide chain that ends prematurely and a protein product that is truncated (abbreviated) and incomplete and usually nonfunctional. The stop codons that cause the mutations are usually (UAG, UAA, and UGA) in simplest terms knowns to those who have done science for humorous purposes (UAG)= U Are Gone--- (UAA)= U Are Away and lastly (UGA) U Go Away...Thus once you see one of those you know you'll have a premature stop thus rendering it a nonsense mutation... Prior also under your evolution thread, I gave you a fine example of what a silent mutation looks like.. I showed you the entire degenerate code... see how simple? now take any of the afore mentioned mutations and give me a different specie with it
What are you talking about? Pls give me an intelligent answer.. not the one you can think off out of the top of your head!
I have given you several headings of mutations tons of times.. and an explanation of how two of them work.. one above and one under the evolution thread.. that particular example was of silent mutation.. the above a nonsense here is the one from previous link http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/40393-evolution-3.html#post710586
here are some others to add to your studies
Point mutation
silent mutation
nonsense mutation
frame shift mutation
to name a few-- do I have to keep repeating them through out the posts? There is no mutation known to man that can cause anything other than death/disease/ or a state of -plasia for the umpteenth time, this time I hope we are clear!
lol.. is that supposed to mean something to me? show me how populations have evolved? show me how the planet of the apes is now planet of the humans.
Why are you asking me of your area of "expertise"? why don't you teach us as well as shed some light on why this question is relevant?
If it is a gradual change through time, why did you attest to its reproducibility? Can't you keep a story together?
Last edited:
ok so now explain to me how it is anyway rational accepting theories u know cannot be proven. this is what is refered to as faith, no?
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
That is because we use Tesla's polyphase alternating current, not edison'! No one is turning it into religion vs science.. no one is using the Quran in this discussion.. we are using what we know of science to better understand old (quasi- scientific) myth
Again, I don't think any of the believers here are using anything other than science to make their point!
I find that all systems work well together... and none adorns, better than hope which isn't something you can define with scientific means.. I am yet to run into "science guys" that ignore the spiritual side of things.. I have no doubt such folks exist.. but they are not the majority.. learning humbles you and turns you on to the magisterate of the engineer behind it all..
There is no Question that G-D is behind it all... Some evolutionists use the most convoluted stories to counter act stories of creation.. but their stories aren't any better, sometimes bordering upon absured.. All I think about, when I read one of their well written inferences is something along these lines
You should visit this.. it is indeed amazing --- A great engineer, architect, artist, mathematician, And an aesthetician, is behind it all...
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-science/40941-must-see.html#post717984
with that good night all
ranma1/2
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 1,095
- Reaction score
- 43
PurestAmbrosia
Im getting tired of you being purposefully obtuse. All you are doing is listing types of mutations. You dont understand or you do understand and you are being willfully ignorant. Yes you have listed many types of mutaions, guess what, those are types of mutations. Show me a case where something has mutated a specific responce to its enviroment, you cant becuase mutations are random. Now please anwer my questions so i know that you know what we are talking about. Provide a link if you wish, ill assume will have read it.
Im getting tired of you being purposefully obtuse. All you are doing is listing types of mutations. You dont understand or you do understand and you are being willfully ignorant. Yes you have listed many types of mutaions, guess what, those are types of mutations. Show me a case where something has mutated a specific responce to its enviroment, you cant becuase mutations are random. Now please anwer my questions so i know that you know what we are talking about. Provide a link if you wish, ill assume will have read it.
ranma1/2
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 1,095
- Reaction score
- 43
We accept the scientific theories based on evidence.
Faith "in the relgious sense" is based on no evidence.
I believe that the sun will rise in the morning due to the fact that we know much about the sun and its current condition. We know why the sun rises "or appears to rise". based on that evidence we can theorize it will rise in the morning. It is possible that the earth will blow up before then or the sun or the guy that is dreaming us could wake up etc... etc...
So it is completely rational to accept theories that cant be proven 100% but are shown to be the most likely based onthe evidence. Also if you did not accept a theory then you should try to come up with a better one. Even if its just to make the current theory better.
So essentially is it more logical to believe something that has evidence supporting it or something that has no evidence. I would go for evidence.
Trumble
IB Expert
- Messages
- 3,275
- Reaction score
- 389
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Buddhist
Really?
I'm on the same 'side' I suppose, but I'll happily admit that I believe the sun will rise every morning 'only' because it has done every day of my life so far and has never shown any signs of not doing it. That reason would be exactly the same were I atheist or committed theist.
ranma1/2
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 1,095
- Reaction score
- 43
exactly the evidence points to that it will rise tomorrow, of course it might not if the sun or earth blows up.
i disagree, there is alot of evidence for religion, and the existence of god.
you seem to have read bertrand russell, and i think we are spiralling into a rationalist, empiricist debate.
ranma1/2
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 1,095
- Reaction score
- 43
evidence for religion, yes. Evidence for god? no. of course then again we need to define the god in each case. Of course that is in general impossible under science .
Pygoscelis
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 4,009
- Reaction score
- 358
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Atheism
Ah! But this also would indicate that you are immortal.
Uness you are a zombie that is. :skeleton:
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Purposefully obtuse? Answer my questions? Post me links?
Let me tell you exactly what your analogies sound like to me. Or anyone who has done in the very least an
introductory course in molecular bio. and genetics!.... You use the word mutation like someone using the term medication..
well which medication we ask?
you (Oh, I don't know its name --the pt. took a random prescription!)
us-Well here is the list of meds we have in the pharmacy that s/he could have used, pls pick one!--
you (well-- the one whose side affects causes the patient to see purple dots and pink elephants)..
us-Wow, We have a compendium of side affect here and these you propose have never been documented in the PDR
you -(Well, that is because it was random --prove to me it wasn't random.. oh give me sources.. oh it could happen, scientists have hypothesized that this side affect is possible due to interaction with the cytochrome P450 and At Berkeley they stated that thioridizine causes optic neuritis thereby leading us to conclude that one can see purple dots and pink elephants)
us--(how does optic neuritis cause pts. to see purple dots and pink elephants?)
You--(I just posted you an article care to refute it?)
us-- how about you just show us the pathophysiology of that from what you understood from the article in question
you-- ( You are just being Purposefully obtuse)
Us ( and you are being purposefully Fallacious!)
with that concluded we hope you can see how ridiculous you are being? if you can't handle a topic, Don't come in here strutting ultimate knowledge in it, when you don't have simple basic concepts down!
peace!
Last edited:
ranma1/2
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 1,095
- Reaction score
- 43
sigh...
I cant expect any real conversation with you can I?
You have no understanding of evolution. You show no sincerity in these discussions and you constantly try to misdirect. Or you sincerly do not understand why mutations in evo are considered random. If you want please show how the mutations are guided. I have stated time and time again how evo works. You avoid and ignore. Until you act sincere in these discussions im ignoring you again. If you wish to consider that a win then please delude yourself.
I cant expect any real conversation with you can I?
You have no understanding of evolution. You show no sincerity in these discussions and you constantly try to misdirect. Or you sincerly do not understand why mutations in evo are considered random. If you want please show how the mutations are guided. I have stated time and time again how evo works. You avoid and ignore. Until you act sincere in these discussions im ignoring you again. If you wish to consider that a win then please delude yourself.
Abdul Fattah
a.k.a. steve
- Messages
- 1,931
- Reaction score
- 450
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
ranma1/2
I understand what you are trying to say, I'd advice you to avoid the word "random" it's to ambigious.
Ambrosia,
Mainstream evolutionists believe that mutations are not purpose minded. If a mutation is beneficial that is considered coincidence. But so far there is no causal link found originating from an environment going towards the cell and instignating a mutation. You could compare it with an open tap that poors water over a hand. The open tap is mutation and the curvature of the hand is survival of the fittest. The curvature of the hand might dictate the direction in which the water flows, but it does not "cause" the water to flow. Only the open tab (=mutations) can be regarded as "cause".
ID is the belief that these "purposeless" mutation do happen according to a pre-set design. However, from that point on you're no longer talking physics but venturing into belief.
Scientific theories are based on empirical testing, evolution is based on speculation.
Scientific theories are testable, evolution is not.
Scientific theories are falsifiable, evolution is not.
That is why the with evolution -as opposed to scientific theories- the word theory should be interpreted as an unsubstantiated guess or hunch.
I understand what you are trying to say, I'd advice you to avoid the word "random" it's to ambigious.
Ambrosia,
Mainstream evolutionists believe that mutations are not purpose minded. If a mutation is beneficial that is considered coincidence. But so far there is no causal link found originating from an environment going towards the cell and instignating a mutation. You could compare it with an open tap that poors water over a hand. The open tap is mutation and the curvature of the hand is survival of the fittest. The curvature of the hand might dictate the direction in which the water flows, but it does not "cause" the water to flow. Only the open tab (=mutations) can be regarded as "cause".
ID is the belief that these "purposeless" mutation do happen according to a pre-set design. However, from that point on you're no longer talking physics but venturing into belief.
I would just like to comment on this. Please do not compare the theory of evolution with scientific theories. Just because it uses science doesn't make it a scientific theory by itself.
Scientific theories are based on empirical testing, evolution is based on speculation.
Scientific theories are testable, evolution is not.
Scientific theories are falsifiable, evolution is not.
That is why the with evolution -as opposed to scientific theories- the word theory should be interpreted as an unsubstantiated guess or hunch.
Last edited:
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
How Jungian of you-- a refreshing assessment of self --thank you letting us into your subconscious and being insightful for once!
From your hyperbolic soliloquy thus far it would suffice it to say neither do you!
Conversely, how are you then sincere? Sincerity comes from dedication to ones craft.. it would exude and leap between the lines from one with intense understanding. It would mean the ability to not just discern what a particular subject means but communicate it to others effectively without resorting to (sighs) or science fiction...
If in fact one is boasting irrefutable science, but you aren't hence, you deal with generalities!... if anyone takes it any deeper, questioning what you understood, your argument becomes circular-- which speaks of a very superficial understanding. You borrow most of you replies to posed questions from threads you have previously read!
You are no scholar-- so pls. don't waste my time... if I wanted an article or a book on evolution, I can visit my local library.
( Irrefutable science)-- would mean that you are not dumbfounded by the basics of the topic you present.. it means that you can take any mutation, random or not (not the point of interest although a topic all its own)-- if this is the basis of evolution as you understand it, and give us a completely different specie with it--or as you prefer the same specie from Ape to human! IT WOULD IN FACT BE REPRODUCIBLE! That is what an Irrefutable science means... else your (science-fiction) is no different from the creation stories to which you don't wish to subscribe as plausible.
A "win" what are you 5? Please try to maintain some decorum when replying instead of this incessant need to impulsively write just to have the last word, no matter how poorly it reflects on you! "ignoring" would in fact be a welcome change.. we thank you in advance...
peace!
Last edited:
ranma1/2
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 1,095
- Reaction score
- 43
True thanks Abdul,
Maybe I should clarify.
There is no evidence to show that these mutations are guided in nature or created in response to a need. Ambrosia seem to imply, without any evidence, that there is something guiding these mutations or that they are created specifically to a need. This just isn’t shown to be true with the evidence. What is shown is that mutation occur randomly “unguided and not in response to need”. Instead mutations occur with a random effect. Those effects are normally either selected in or out of the population depending on how fit they make that creature.
Sickle cell is selected out of most populations where it has a negative effect on fitness and selected in where it has a positive effect. Under the logic that the mutation occurs due to need you wouldnt see sickle cell elsewhere but you do.
As for wether ToE is science you commented that
Scientific theories are based on empirical testing, evolution is based on speculation.
The empirical method is used in evolution. Much information has been gathered from observation and testing, some includes fossils, dna as well lab experiments.
Scientific theories are testable, evolution is not.
As Berkley points out it is definitly testable.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIFnotscience.shtml
"The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences."
Scientific theories are falsifiable, evolution is not.
It is falsifiable, If you can find a creature that could not have evolved through evolution you can show that that creature did not evolve. An example would be a pegasus or a minotaur. If you find a creature that is in a relationship with another creature with no benefits. If you can finda structure that can not have evolved. There are many falsification criteria. They vary on what you are exactly trying to falsify but there are several.
I think it should also be pointed out that depending on what you mean by falsification. How exactly would one falsify gravity?
Scientific theories in general try to describe how things work based on evidence. The theory of gravity for example tries to explain why things are attracted to each other. The theory of evolution tries to explain the varitey of species. Both of these are equally valid scientific theories.
lavikor201
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,068
- Reaction score
- 138
There is a law of physics called "causation." It means, in a nutshell, that everything in the world must a cause. Even accidents have reasons why they ended up the way they did. If someone throws the dice and they land on 9, there were reasons why that happened. The force of the throw, the angle, etc. There is a reason for everything.
And there are reasons for the reasons, too. And reasons for those reasons. Nothing happens without a cause.
Now we have a question: If everything has a cause, and the causes also have a cause, and the causes of the cause also have a cause, etc – are the amount of causes in the chain of causes going all the way back infinite or finite?
Finite. Because it would be impossible that there were an infinite chain of causes without a beginning, for, as we learned, an infinite amount of things cannot happen - infinity is not the "biggest number"; rather, it is a number that can never be reached. Therefore, you can never have an infinite number of anything in this world.
And if so, if we cannot have a chain of causes without any beginning, there had to be a beginning - a First Cause, which itself had no cause at all.
This means, that this first cause has no reason or reasons for why it is; nothing created it, nothing makes it what it is. This First Cause is what we refer to as “Hashem”.
The snake has some kinda protective sack that makes protects it from the poison.
Now, as the snake was developing (sic), which came first: The poison or the sack? If the poison, then snakes wouold have immediately become extinct, since they would have all poisoned itself. If the sack, then why would a sack develop and remain if there was no poison to protect it from?
Obvioiusly the poison and the sack had to come at the same time. And that can only happen through Hashem.
And there are reasons for the reasons, too. And reasons for those reasons. Nothing happens without a cause.
Now we have a question: If everything has a cause, and the causes also have a cause, and the causes of the cause also have a cause, etc – are the amount of causes in the chain of causes going all the way back infinite or finite?
Finite. Because it would be impossible that there were an infinite chain of causes without a beginning, for, as we learned, an infinite amount of things cannot happen - infinity is not the "biggest number"; rather, it is a number that can never be reached. Therefore, you can never have an infinite number of anything in this world.
And if so, if we cannot have a chain of causes without any beginning, there had to be a beginning - a First Cause, which itself had no cause at all.
This means, that this first cause has no reason or reasons for why it is; nothing created it, nothing makes it what it is. This First Cause is what we refer to as “Hashem”.
The snake has some kinda protective sack that makes protects it from the poison.
Now, as the snake was developing (sic), which came first: The poison or the sack? If the poison, then snakes wouold have immediately become extinct, since they would have all poisoned itself. If the sack, then why would a sack develop and remain if there was no poison to protect it from?
Obvioiusly the poison and the sack had to come at the same time. And that can only happen through Hashem.
Last edited:
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
What Ambrosia is implying isn't whether a mutation is random or not, (though I don't believe every mutation to be random) that is a very vestigial point in this argument! And shows me how much you have read and understood from previous posts--the crux of yours however, is random mutations occurring over time lead to evolution, thereby changing one specie to another. (Ape to man)-- what you fail to do however, is assign a name to that "random mutation".. when every mutation known to man, its pathophysiology, as well as outcome are recorded. You only dazzle us with generalities.
We have given you headings and several examples on how mutations work, and told you through countless posts, that a mutation causes nothing but a state of death, disease, no change at all-- or a (-plasia), and further putting a nick in your theory of (random selection) by attesting that through Trinucleotide repeat, a specie doesn't get selected out.. or perish, rather continues to get worst over time with every successive generation--that is factual science and can be verified from any entry level book on molecular biology or genetics--As well as can be seen in human subjects! ..
You have all the labs you need to prove your point, so why not put your money where your mouth is, instead of cutting and pasting the work of other people, look for something else to hang all your strength and faith on. The very citadel of your argument has failed you least as a verifiable "scientific fact"!
Last edited:
- Status