PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     "Evolution is a religion!"
       Not so, unless you can explain these points!

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 3:35 PM on June 16, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 07:59 AM on June 16, 2005 :
The DNA is made from proteins.


No, it isn't.

What does DNA look like?

[i] The sides of the ladder are a linked chain of alternating sugar and phosphate molecules. The rungs connect to the sugar molecules and are known as bases.

Purine-cytosine permease and related proteins(80 proteins in 48 species;
proteinannotationorganism

BH1882 (Q9KBP3) Cytosine permeaseBacillus halodurans
YXLA (P94369) Homologous to purine-cytosine permeaseBacillus subtilis
BLL3347 (Q89PY3) Bll3347 proteinBradyrhizobium japonicum
CODB (Q7NUX5) Purine cytosine permease-like proteinChromobacterium violaceum
EF3277 (Q82Z02) Cytosine permease, putativeEnterococcus faecalis
ADL074W (AAS51846) ADL074WpEremothecium gossypii
CODB (Q8X691) Cytosine permease/transportEscherichia coli EDL933
CODB (CODB_ECOLI) Cytosine permeaseEscherichia coli K12
CODB (Q8X691) Cytosine permease/transportEscherichia coli O157:H7
C4762 (Q8FBL0) Putative permeaseEscherichia

"What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But, as Monod points out the machinery by which the cell (at least the nonprimitive cell which is the only one we know) translates the code `consists of a least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA' (Monod, 1970; 1971, 143). Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a really baffling circle: a vicious circle, it seems for any attempt to form a model, or a theory, of the genesis of the genetic code." (Popper, Karl R., [Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of London], "Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science," in "Studies in the Philosophy of Biology," Vol. 259,


















-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:28 PM on June 16, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 11:28 PM on June 16, 2005 :

Purine-cytosine permease and related proteins(80 proteins in 48 species;
proteinannotationorganism

BH1882 (Q9KBP3) Cytosine permeaseBacillus halodurans
YXLA (P94369) Homologous to purine-cytosine permeaseBacillus subtilis
BLL3347 (Q89PY3) Bll3347 proteinBradyrhizobium japonicum
CODB (Q7NUX5) Purine cytosine permease-like proteinChromobacterium violaceum
EF3277 (Q82Z02) Cytosine permease, putativeEnterococcus faecalis
ADL074W (AAS51846) ADL074WpEremothecium gossypii
CODB (Q8X691) Cytosine permease/transportEscherichia coli EDL933
CODB (CODB_ECOLI) Cytosine permeaseEscherichia coli K12
CODB (Q8X691) Cytosine permease/transportEscherichia coli O157:H7
C4762 (Q8FBL0) Putative permeaseEscherichia

"What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But, as Monod points out the machinery by which the cell (at least the nonprimitive cell which is the only one we know) translates the code `consists of a least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA' (Monod, 1970; 1971, 143). Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a really baffling circle: a vicious circle, it seems for any attempt to form a model, or a theory, of the genesis of the genetic code." (Popper, Karl R., [Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of London], "Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science," in "Studies in the Philosophy of Biology," Vol. 259,


Ok, exactly where in that mess does it say that DNA is a protein?  It isn't.

If you are going to cut and paste at least make it correct.

One more time, DNA is not a protein.

Just where did you come up with that idea?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:24 AM on June 17, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To echo Apoapsis, DNA is not a protein in anyway shape or form.

I find it perplexing that people have a problem with biological evolution. It's the the primary paradigm used in biological research, this ranges from molecular biology to zoology. It is undeniable to biologists that it is the best, if not the ONLY theory (I.D is a joke) that fits the evidence.

(Edited by mabfynhad 6/17/2005 at 12:53 PM).

(Edited by mabfynhad 6/17/2005 at 8:39 PM).


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 12:48 PM on June 17, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mabfynhad at 12:48 PM on June 17, 2005 :
I find it perplexing that people have a problem with biological evolution.


It boils down to fear.  Fundamentalist religion, as opposed to other religions such as Christianity, are invested in their "infallible" interpretation of a physical object, be it the Bible, the Koran, etc.

They are so wrapped up in the absoluteness of this interpretation that they place it above all else.  A rigid thinking system provides great security.  Anything suggesting that they may need to reconsider some aspect is met with fierce resistance because it is a threat.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:53 PM on June 17, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Twist the facts? You cannot twist facts.

You're giving it the old college try!

If you could they would not be facts.

But that's exactly what you were trying to do, twist the facts about coelacanths!  You said:
"They were 100% wrong . It is the same creature , it is evidence of statis , of Creation."
And you were wrong, you were trying to twist the facts.  The fact is modern coelacanths and fossilized coelacanths are not only different species, but a different genus.  So it is NOT the same creature.  

By far your most brilliant argument.

But I've backed up my claims, you never back up yours.  Your best arguement is "that's absurd" and nothing else...

To you only people who agree with you understand anything. Science welcomes challenges. Demonology does not.

But you've presented NO challenges, you make statements based on disproven myths and your own incredulity and you present nothing else.  You've made no challeneges, only tried to twist the facts to support your unsupportable position.

Has it ever occurred to you that what a genus is and what is not an interpretation?

What?!?!  Your trying to weasel out of this how?!?!  I showed you what the modern and fossilized coelacanths looked like, by ANY interpretation they are different!  Please, don't lecture us on Linnean classification when you don't even understand biology!

The fish was said to have developing feet, lungs, and a mammals brain. It was an ICON of evolution. It had none of these features , it was , is , a fish , nothing more..

Show me ANYONE who claimed a coelacanth had a mammals brain!!  Anyone at all, besides you!    Yes, it is a fish, but it's a fish that has clearly evovled, the fossilized coelacanths are different from modern coelacanths, why are they different?

Sooner or later ALL evidence for evolution hits the wall.

Then how come ALL the evidence for evolution hasn't hit the wall?  How come more evidence is found everyday?  This is another point you just can't support.

Piltdown Man , Piltdown Bird, Nebraska Man , The Ginko Tree ad infinitum.

Piltdown man and Archaeoraptor were shown to be hoaxes by real scientists.  What's the problem with the Ginko tree???

Of course they were not thought to exist. They were thought to have crawled out of the sea and became you and me.

No, not at all, they were thought to have gone extinct, what we didn't know is they EVOLVED to live in a different environment, one where they were extremely well hidden.  And I see you still don't undertand how evolution works...

Finding them alive disproved everything about the theory of evolution.

Hahahahaaa!!!  How?  How did it disprove ANYTHING about evolution!  You've already been told that original populations don't have to die off when daugther populations arise!
So how did finding live coelacanths disprove anything about evolution?!?!?  Put up or shut up!

So what happened, “scientist” changed the theory.

But that's how science works!  It changes with new data!  That's it's greatest strength!  Why do you keep making veiled accusations about this when it's the reason science has been so successful?

They can’t be the same creature or evolution is false so they must be a different genus and other lobe finned fish crawled out of the sea.

And, as usual, you ignore (or twist) the facts.  
They must be different because they are different!  So once again the evidence is plain, they are differetn, and all your whining and ranting mean nothing.
And what evidence do you have that proves coelacanths aren't related to tetrapods?!?!  YOu never back up any of your claims, why should we believe them?

Sounds like a story a child would make up.

You should know, you believe 3000 year old sheepherder myths are true...

It has all the intellectual integrity of “ the dog ate my homework”

Explain to us in detail why you make this claim.
It's getting ridiculous, you're presented with the facts, modern and fossilized coelacanths are morphologically different.  You ignore this fact and make up your own "facts"!  Don't let reality get in your way!  

You say that fossilized coelacanths can be used as an index fossil but you also have said there are no index fossils because radiometric dating stands alone.

And once again you lie!  I never said there are no index fossils, what I did say is that index fossils are a quick way to obtain an unofficial date before any other testing is done.  Please show the exact post where I said "there are no index fossils" or once again, you are a liar.

Why would you make the statement no other coelacanths exist when it is obvious we don’t know that.

Science works on evidence, until you can show us evidence for other genus of coelacanth existing, they don't exist.  Simple as that.  Why do you make the statement that other coelacanths exist when we don't know that and have no evidence to support that claim?

This whole post is about one that “was” extinct. It shows your circular pattern of thinking.

Since you have no idea what circular thinking is, let me explain it to you.
"The Bible is the word of God.  How do you know this?  Because it says so in the Bible."  That is circular thinking, You have not been able to show any circular logic in any of the statements I've made and when asked to explain how they are circular, you ignore the request.

Evolution is true, we know that evolution is true because ALL evidence supports it. ALL evidence supports the theory of evolution because evolution is true.

No, you really have no idea how science or logic works, that's obvious.  Evolution is valid because all evidence found to date supports it.
Your next line doesn't follow, All evidence doesn't support evolution BECAUSE it's true, all the evidence supports evolution, all you have to do is provide evidence to falsify evolution so, what evidence falsifies it?  With all the evidence that supports evolution it can be shown HOW it supports evolution, something you can't do with your myths.

How do we “know” the others don’t exist? Because evolution is true.

No, we know they don't exist because we haven't found any evidence for them.  Who said they don't exist because evolution is true, besides you?  Ridiculous sttement and it has no bearing on reality.

We “know” they evolved because they don’t exist.

You just don't seem capable of understanding the theory of evolution!  It doesn't matter if the original population exists or not, that doesn't mean a thing!  We know coelacanths evolved because we find no modern coelacanths in the fossil record, so how did we go from the genus in the fossil record to the genus we have swimming around today?  

We “know”they don’t exist because they evolved.

Strawman, you're the only one claiming this.

Why don’t we find a pattern of slow gradual change? Simple, the change happened quickly. How do we “know” it happened quickly? Simple , there is no evidence for gradualism.


We haven't found all fossils yet, so your rant is meaningless.  How do you explain the patterns of change we DO find...

How do we “know” that? All evidence is evidence for evolution because evolution is true.

Your claim is meaningless, you still can't refute the fact that all evidence found to date supports evolution.  There are many things that, if found, would refute evolution, scientists have searched for them, they haven't been found.  So in other words, you can't deal with the real evidence that supports evolution so you'll just make up things and ignore the real evidence.  You can't produce any evidence to support creationism, so you just won't bother talking about it.  You are pathetic.

Could have arisen? That is a fairy tale.

No it's not.  It's a reasonable hypothesis that has much evidence supporting it.  

Explain the mechanism, give me an example?

Hahahaaaa!!!  You don't even know what the modern theories of abiogenesis are?!?!  Do your own research and then come back and see me...

Magic is not the power of Almighty God.

If God can break the laws of physics, that is magic.  Face it, you believe in a magic man in the sky!

The DNA is made from proteins.

Wrong, DNA is NOT made from proteins.

The only answer is they were created at the same instant.

Hahahaaaa!!!Fairytale...

Pre-biotic natural selection is absurd.
This is what your hero says:
“Dobzhansky, an Evolutionist, said...
Natural selection is differential reproduction, organism perpetuation.  In order to have natural selection, you have to have self-reproduction or self-replication and at least two self-replicating units of entities ... I would like to plead with you, simply, please realize you cannot use the words 'natural selection' loosely.  Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms”
He belives in evolution but knows that spontaneous generation is impossible.


Boy, you are stupid.  You completely misinterpretated what Dobzhansky is saying here!  It's what we've been trying to tell you and you refuse to believe it!  What he's saying is, essentially, evolution and abiogenesis are different!  Here's another example of you dishonestly twisting the words of a real scientist and trying (unsuccessfully) to claim he's saying something he clearly is not!
What he is saying is that in order for natural selection to be in affect, you need a self replicating population.  Prebiotic natural selection is a contradiction in terms because natural selection can ONLY work on living populations that reproduce.  It can not work on prebiotic chemicals self organizing.  In other words, Dobzhansky is simply saying evoluiton and abiogenesis are different, they involve different processes.  No where does Dobzhansky say abiogenesis is impossible!  You are either a lousy reader or intentionally dishonest, which is it?  

At this point I rest my case. For the umpteenth time you have proven my case for me. You are thinking in a circle.
“Coevoluiton of supporting structures is easily explained by the theory of evolution”
This is a Webster’s class definition of thinking in a circle. Evolution theory is explained by evolution theory.


Why is it a circle????  Why can't systems coevovle?  Especially since we have seen that they can and do coevolve!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:03 PM on June 17, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.