How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?

originally posted by: Barcs

Wrong. The correct answer is we have a CRAPLOAD of knowledge and research related to evolution, but we don't know every detail of everything. That's not a problem because the evidence is consistence and abundant. Your argument of "We don't know this one thing, therefor we don't know anything and the whole theory is faith based," is a completely fallacious.

So you admit evolutionary theory is incomplete, and you have faith that one day it will be figured out, and definitely prove evolutionary theory? You guys do have some great faith, but it's a shame its for a dead-end meaningless theory.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Wrong. The correct answer is we have a CRAPLOAD of knowledge and research related to evolution, but we don't know every detail of everything. That's not a problem because the evidence is consistence and abundant. Your argument of "We don't know this one thing, therefor we don't know anything and the whole theory is faith based," is a completely fallacious.

So you admit evolutionary theory is incomplete, and you have faith that one day it will be figured out, and definitely prove evolutionary theory? You guys do have some great faith, but it's a shame its for a dead-end meaningless theory.

I'm curious and win no popularity contests with anyone when I say I can see Evoulution in many places and ways
BUT believe it is Creative in nature - Though admit to not being capable of projecting with any certainty......
Still the fact that there is a mind capable of observing, defining and projecting into the future is
significant - And in my opinion this is more than just a survival of the fittest scenario.

So what I'm curious about is what is the current 'Evolutionary theory' and what do so called Creationist have to
say - Do they have a theroy to fit what is known and accepted in today's World

originally posted by: AlienView

So what I'm curious about is what is the current 'Evolutionary theory' and what do so called Creationist have to
say - Do they have a theroy to fit what is known and accepted in today's World

Evolutionary theory is constantly changing the goal posts. Recently it has been proven that epigenetic inheritance occurs, which is a demonstration of Lamarckism over Darwinism. Yet not evolutionists have to adopt this into evolutionary theory, despite it being antithetical to what they once stood for. What epigenetic inheritance is showing us, is that most supposed examples of microevolution, are actually easily reversible, and therefore not evolution at all.

Take for example antibiotic resistance. Once thought to be a clear demonstration of evolution at work, but an inconvenient truth pervaded: when the antibiotic was removed from the population, the germ line receded back to being vulnerable to the antibiotic. Researchers found that this was actually due to epigenetic markers were inheritable. Meaning that alterations to the expression of the genome during the lifetime of an individual were inheritable. In the case of antibiotic resistance, it was the increased expression (or increased number) of detoxification pumps in the bacterial DNA. The hardwire DNA had no drastic changes, instead it simply created more detoxification pumps to accomodate the increased toxicity load of the antibiotic.

Source

This matches the Intelligent Design model because it insists that organisms cannot change into another kind of organism. Plato, one of the first known secular proponents of Intelligent Design, concluded this in the 4th century BC - an organism cannot surpass a particular biological boundary that would surpass its essence. This is exactly what we see in the lab, despite immense efforts to demonstrate evolution.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
I wonder how many times I have to copy my computer games for the code to get enough errors to magically give me better graphics. Maybe we'll even get a distinction between male and female games so that the graphics can improve faster when they both run at the same time.

Nice straw man. Well done!

How is that a straw man?

Are you so desperate that you have to falsely accuse people of fallacies to pretend that you're always right?

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
I wonder how many times I have to copy my computer games for the code to get enough errors to magically give me better graphics. Maybe we'll even get a distinction between male and female games so that the graphics can improve faster when they both run at the same time.

Nice straw man. Well done!

How is that a straw man?

Are you so desperate that you have to falsely accuse people of fallacies to pretend that you're always right?

Can you not even read your own response??? You dishonestly compared evolution to copying computer games and magically improving the graphics capability. Not even close to how genetic mutation works.

originally posted by: cooperton
So you admit evolutionary theory is incomplete, and you have faith that one day it will be figured out, and definitely prove evolutionary theory? You guys do have some great faith, but it's a shame its for a dead-end meaningless theory.

Our knowledge of everything in the history of the universe is incomplete. Not knowing everything is not the equivalent of knowing nothing. It's the same fallacy every time with you. Meanwhile we are all still waiting for you to refute a single piece of research. It still hasn't happened, you just plug your ears to all the evidence and latch onto any possibility to support your faith regardless of scrutiny or critical thinking or scientific research.

Evolutionary theory is constantly changing the goal posts. Recently it has been proven that epigenetic inheritance occurs, which is a demonstration of Lamarckism over Darwinism.What epigenetic inheritance is showing us, is that most supposed examples of microevolution, are actually easily reversible, and therefore not evolution at all.

LOL! This was already thoroughly refuted. Epigentics does not replace evolution. I can't believe you are still making this argument after being decimated. Epigenetics is not an argument against evolution. LOL @ calling evolutionary changes reversible. The only thing changeable is whether a gene is expressed, the genetic mutations are not reversible.

This matches the Intelligent Design model because it insists that organisms cannot change into another kind of organism.

No, it doesn't. Kind is not a word in biology, yet you still default to Kent Hovind BS.

Plato, one of the first known secular proponents of Intelligent Design, concluded this in the 4th century BC - an organism cannot surpass a particular biological boundary that would surpass its essence.

LMFAO!!! secular proponent of intelligent design?? You are digging yourself deeper and deeper. So a philosopher from nearly 2000 years ago knows more than modern science?? Sorry but that's the dumbest statement you have made yet. You got no argument, just blind denial.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
I wonder how many times I have to copy my computer games for the code to get enough errors to magically give me better graphics. Maybe we'll even get a distinction between male and female games so that the graphics can improve faster when they both run at the same time.

Nice straw man. Well done!

How is that a straw man?

Are you so desperate that you have to falsely accuse people of fallacies to pretend that you're always right?

Can you not even read your own response??? You dishonestly compared evolution to copying computer games and magically improving the graphics capability. Not even close to how genetic mutation works.

Really? How does it work? And spare me the "go read a book or a scientific paper" comments.

originally posted by: vasagaReally? How does it work? And spare me the "go read a book or a scientific paper" comments.

Genetic mutations and natural selection. You made up some completely invalid analogy about copying software and improving graphics. That shows you know nothing about evolution and NOTHING about computer programming. Computers don't evolve. To improve graphics you need better hardware, and software cannot physically improve your graphics card, while genetic mutations can directly affect the morphology of the organism. Comparing that to the mechanisms of genetic mutations altering a genome is completely ridiculous and fallacious.

Maybe one day you guys will actually make a thought provoking argument instead of constant fallacies, but I'm not counting on it.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: AlienView

So what I'm curious about is what is the current 'Evolutionary theory' and what do so called Creationist have to
say - Do they have a theroy to fit what is known and accepted in today's World

Evolutionary theory is constantly changing the goal posts. Recently it has been proven that epigenetic inheritance occurs, which is a demonstration of Lamarckism over Darwinism. Yet not evolutionists have to adopt this into evolutionary theory, despite it being antithetical to what they once stood for. What epigenetic inheritance is showing us, is that most supposed examples of microevolution, are actually easily reversible, and therefore not evolution at all.

Take for example antibiotic resistance. Once thought to be a clear demonstration of evolution at work, but an inconvenient truth pervaded: when the antibiotic was removed from the population, the germ line receded back to being vulnerable to the antibiotic. Researchers found that this was actually due to epigenetic markers were inheritable. Meaning that alterations to the expression of the genome during the lifetime of an individual were inheritable. In the case of antibiotic resistance, it was the increased expression (or increased number) of detoxification pumps in the bacterial DNA. The hardwire DNA had no drastic changes, instead it simply created more detoxification pumps to accomodate the increased toxicity load of the antibiotic.

Source

This matches the Intelligent Design model because it insists that organisms cannot change into another kind of organism. Plato, one of the first known secular proponents of Intelligent Design, concluded this in the 4th century BC - an organism cannot surpass a particular biological boundary that would surpass its essence. This is exactly what we see in the lab, despite immense efforts to demonstrate evolution.

and yet intelligent design is never alluded to in the research document itself, suggesting that their conclusions are not aligned with yours. what WAS their conclusion, by the way?

Nonetheless we propose DNA methylation of the marRAB operon as the possible cause of this variability because: (i) it can be inherited; (ii) mutant cells in which methylation is lacking are much more susceptible to antibiotics [1]; (iii) it provides the necessary variability in short periods of time required for adaptive resistance to emerge [1]. However, regardless of the precise mechanism behind this variability, the important point in our model is the existence of inheritable variability that can be quickly developed. For our results show that some heritable mechanism modifying the transcription rates of an efflux pump regulatory network must be present in order to observe adaptive resistance.

no fingerprint of god here.

One more try........A different angle.

In philosophy there is a term called 'Fictionalism' [the use of fiction to attempt to elaborate on a philosophical concept]
- I have my own version which I call 'Sciencefictionalism'.

So here is the story.......

The UFO craft that seem to move outside of the boundaries of known physics are often occupied by real aliens
- from other dimensions of time and space then what Man perceives. [this has been hypothesized by some real
scientists such as Jacques Vallee a computer scientist who has writen books on this subject]

One day a group of aliens decides to make real contact with Humans - They've been observing this planet for eons
but never saw much of interest as their tech is so far advanced so as to make Man's seem trite.

They approach a scientist involved in studying biological Evolution and ask him to explain how one cell led
to his existence and how this one cell led to a vast amount of other biological life that Man has seen and recorded.

The scientist explains to the alien all about Evolutionary Theory and how it works.

The aliens who themselves are not biological beings but rather computer like entities, sort of like what you might
imagine quantum computers to be like a thousand years from now - They see more dimensions than most Humans
can even imagine as existing.

After you explain Evolutionary Theory the aliens who unfortunately have no sense of humor, interface with each other
and immediately reach the conclusion that the species Man is still inconsequential and dumb.

They immediately erase the scientist memory of the encounter and leave the dimension where Earth exists
- But will return occasionally to see if Man can somehow reach an intelligence level where communication is
possible.

Obviously neither Intelligent Design or Evolution has advanced sufficiently for meaningful contact
- And probably never will since Evolution itself must have an intelligence, an intelligent design you might say,
to advance at sll - Otherwise it is a nothing hypothesis that came from nothing and goes nowhere.

Understand this conundrum and one day Human the aliens that just observe you like a strange backward colony
may be able to have a meaningful conversation.

Aren't you at least curious Human about what it would be like to be intelligent
- Aren't you at least curious to see where you really came from and where you might one day go


- AlienView

Also this sounds interesting:

Noted Atheist Philosopher Thomas Nagel: “Defenders of Intelligent Design Deserve Our Gratitude”

In September, Oxford University Press officially releases the hardcover version of a new book by renowned philosopher Thomas Nagel at New York University. It’s a bombshell.

"......Nagel’s book carries the provocative title Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. You read that right: The book’s subtitle declares that “the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.” Nagel is an atheist who is not convinced by the positive case for intelligent design. But he clearly finds the evidence for modern Darwinian theory wanting. Moreover, he is keenly appreciative of the “iconoclasts” of the intelligent design movement for raising a significant challenge to the current scientific orthodoxy. In chapter 1, Nagel cites with favor the work of three Discovery Institute Fellows in particular:

In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture… by the defenders of intelligent design. Even though writers like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer are motivated at least in part by their religious beliefs, the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves. Another skeptic, David Berlinski, has brought out these problems vividly without reference to the design inference. Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.

Refreshingly, Nagel is not taken in by one-sided efforts to evade the arguments of intelligent design proponents by stigmatizing their presumed “religious beliefs.” As Nagel points out, “the empirical arguments” offered by ID proponents “are of great interest in themselves.” It’s the evidence that matters, and it’s the evidence that demands a response. Nagel goes on to say something that likely will really rile some defenders of Darwinian orthodoxy:

I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion. That world view is ripe for displacement….

Wow. Anyone who still believes that the weight of the evidence supports the Darwinian view, and that no rational person can doubt the Darwinian consensus, needs to read Nagel’s book..........

See whole article here:
evolutionnews.org...

Sure seems daft that a 'god' would persist with his toy dinosaurs for about 165 millions years, I suppose they kept ignoring the tablets he kept sending and eating the plagues he terrorised them with. No wonder he smited them and smited them good.

We conveniently forget the dinosaurs, that we're only really top of the tree and here as we are because they are not. I'd imagine once we do something stupid enough to end our reign of terror on the planet that another species will come to the fore and maybe they will ponder their existence or maybe they'll just crawl about and enjoy what they have.

I believe we are just here because we are here and that there's no real purpose to it all. Like the mold on my cheese, it doesn't question why it's here it just is. Or maybe moldy cheese is part of the big experiment. Well to cheese manufacturers I suppose it is.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

and yet intelligent design is never alluded to in the research document itself

Of course not. Their agenda is not to prove God, but to prove an existence without the necessity of a God.

"Nonetheless we propose DNA methylation of the marRAB operon as the possible cause of this variability because: (i) it can be inherited; (ii) mutant cells in which methylation is lacking are much more susceptible to antibiotics [1]; (iii) it provides the necessary variability in short periods of time required for adaptive resistance to emerge [1]. However, regardless of the precise mechanism behind this variability, the important point in our model is the existence of inheritable variability that can be quickly developed. For our results show that some heritable mechanism modifying the transcription rates of an efflux pump regulatory network must be present in order to observe adaptive resistance."

no fingerprint of god here.

That entire excerpt sounds very intelligent... the type of intelligence required to even begin to scrape the tip of the iceberg regarding the immense design complexity involved with human biochemistry.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasagaReally? How does it work? And spare me the "go read a book or a scientific paper" comments.

Genetic mutations and natural selection.

That's a completely vague answer that doesn't say anything about how it works. That's like if someone asks how a car works, and someone replies, gasoline and engine.

originally posted by: Barcs
You made up some completely invalid analogy about copying software and improving graphics. That shows you know nothing about evolution and NOTHING about computer programming.

You said that DNA copies itself, that has errors, and those errors ultimately drive evolution through natural selection. What is the difference between the copy faults of DNA and the copy faults of a computer? And if everything is mechanistic and deterministic, why would it work for an organism, and not a computer?

originally posted by: Barcs
Computers don't evolve.

And why is that?

originally posted by: Barcs
To improve graphics you need better hardware, and software cannot physically improve your graphics card, while genetic mutations can directly affect the morphology of the organism. Comparing that to the mechanisms of genetic mutations altering a genome is completely ridiculous and fallacious.

So you are actually saying that you need something more than simply a mechanistic deterministic process for evolution to take place.

originally posted by: Barcs
Maybe one day you guys will actually make a thought provoking argument instead of constant fallacies, but I'm not counting on it.

Maybe one day you can actually reply without being condescending and with actual knowledge rather than blind repetition of what you've been spoonfed.

I have to actually laugh at your signature... Make America Intelligent again. It's REALLY ironic.

originally posted by: vasaga
That's a completely vague answer that doesn't say anything about how it works. That's like if someone asks how a car works, and someone replies, gasoline and engine.

How is that vague? It explains how evolution works. At it's core evolution is the change in frequency of alleles in a population group determined by genetic mutations, natural selection and myriad of other mechanisms. Your comparison was completely invalid and I already explained why.

You said that DNA copies itself, that has errors, and those errors ultimately drive evolution through natural selection. What is the difference between the copy faults of DNA and the copy faults of a computer? And if everything is mechanistic and deterministic, why would it work for an organism, and not a computer?

Genetic code directly affects the morphology of an organism. Copy errors on a computer do not alter the physical computer, while genetic mutations in DNA CAN do that. It's invalid.

And why is that?

LMAO! Really? They are not biological organisms. I can't believe you needed to ask.

So you are actually saying that you need something more than simply a mechanistic deterministic process for evolution to take place.

Nice straw man. I said your comparison was invalid and outlined why.

Maybe one day you can actually reply without being condescending and with actual knowledge rather than blind repetition of what you've been spoonfed.

I'll stop being condescending when you guys stop the arrogance, lies and blatant misrepresentations of evolution or my position.

I am coming in to this late and I am not going to read 19 pages before posting so, if I repeat, I apologize.

Nature is all about balance. A symbiotic relationship is about as good as it gets according to nature. Neither can survive without the other but together they flourish. Think of it as a sort of fail safe mechanism built in to the program. It forces both sides to protect each other, not just themselves. Pretty clever if you ask me.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I am coming in to this late and I am not going to read 19 pages before posting so, if I repeat, I apologize.

Nature is all about balance. A symbiotic relationship is about as good as it gets according to nature. Neither can survive without the other but together they flourish. Think of it as a sort of fail safe mechanism built in to the program. It forces both sides to protect each other, not just themselves. Pretty clever if you ask me.

The bold part of your above comment raises an important question. If they came to be through evolution, which one came first? As you rightly said one cannot survive without the other. For us to believe that both genders could have evolved simultaneously through random mutation is rationally impossible. The only logical answer is that this program you speak of was created with all the pieces in place.

The more you dissect biology the more you realize the impossibility of evolution

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
That's a completely vague answer that doesn't say anything about how it works. That's like if someone asks how a car works, and someone replies, gasoline and engine.

How is that vague?

That's why discussing with you is impossible. I already answered that, one sentence after I said your supposed answer was vague.

originally posted by: Barcs
It explains how evolution works.

No, it doesn't explain how evolution works any more than the words wings and air explains how a plane flies.

originally posted by: Barcs
At it's core evolution is the change in frequency of alleles in a population group determined by genetic mutations, natural selection and myriad of other mechanisms. Your comparison was completely invalid and I already explained why.

So that implies that all the information is already there, and the frequency change eliminates certain alleles.

originally posted by: Barcs
Genetic code directly affects the morphology of an organism. Copy errors on a computer do not alter the physical computer, while genetic mutations in DNA CAN do that. It's invalid.

Except that doesn't disprove anything. I specifically said games. Games have a visual output. The game code directly affects the visual output. It doesn't have to change the computer itself, anymore than life needs to change the general physical workings of molecules.

originally posted by: Barcs
LMAO! Really? They are not biological organisms. I can't believe you needed to ask.

Ok so there IS a difference between a biological organism and a purely mechanistic machine.

originally posted by: Barcs

So you are actually saying that you need something more than simply a mechanistic deterministic process for evolution to take place.

Nice straw man. I said your comparison was invalid and outlined why.

Do you even know what a strawman is? That is not a straw man. It is an implication of your answer, unintended I'm sure, because you really don't like those implications, and you love to pretend they don't exist. And yet it comes back again and again. You can't keep running forever.

originally posted by: Barcs

I'll stop being condescending when you guys stop the arrogance, lies

Oh the irony...

originally posted by: Barcs
and blatant misrepresentations of evolution or my position.

Maybe if you were actually capable of clarifying evolution or your position, you wouldn't need to be condescending and there wouldn't be any misrepresentations.

originally posted by: vasaga
it doesn't explain how evolution works any more than the words wings and air explains how a plane flies.

So often "evolution did it" is used in place of actual science, because the actual science regarding the mechanism is totally unfounded.

So that implies that all the information is already there, and the frequency change eliminates certain alleles.

exactly. "Natural selection" (i.e. changing population allele frequencies) only works if there are pre-existent alleles to select from! Again, this is further evidence that these pieces were always present to allow populations and individuals to adapt to extremes, but never in a lab setting has an organism changed into another type of organism.

originally posted by: Barcs
Ok so there IS a difference between a biological organism and a purely mechanistic machine.

Computers fail in comparison to biological organisms because biological organisms are much, much more complex than computers. If it requires intelligent humans to make computers, which are far less complex than biological organisms, then it is obvious that biological organisms were also designed by a greater intelligence than we currently possess. Both have code though, and it works as a comparison that randomly changing the code on a computer would never work to increase function, it would only destroy it.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

and yet intelligent design is never alluded to in the research document itself

Of course not. Their agenda is not to prove God, but to prove an existence without the necessity of a God.

"Nonetheless we propose DNA methylation of the marRAB operon as the possible cause of this variability because: (i) it can be inherited; (ii) mutant cells in which methylation is lacking are much more susceptible to antibiotics [1]; (iii) it provides the necessary variability in short periods of time required for adaptive resistance to emerge [1]. However, regardless of the precise mechanism behind this variability, the important point in our model is the existence of inheritable variability that can be quickly developed. For our results show that some heritable mechanism modifying the transcription rates of an efflux pump regulatory network must be present in order to observe adaptive resistance."

no fingerprint of god here.

That entire excerpt sounds very intelligent... the type of intelligence required to even begin to scrape the tip of the iceberg regarding the immense design complexity involved with human biochemistry.

Nope. The article doesn't mention intelligent design even once. Clearly these scholars had other ideas.