Switch to full style
Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Post a reply

Re: Re:

Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:14 am

JackBean wrote:And if you take shell off the crab he will die. If will you take off the horns of a deer, it would die. If you took away claws from lion he would die in a week. Even humans without electricity would survive longer. That's just how we evolved. It is part of our environment just as are buildings part of beavers life. And you cannot say they are natural.


Shell of the crab is PART of the crab. Same as horns, claws, ect. are parts of other animals. Can you take away part of environment and make them die? Of course you can. My point is our environment is essentially artificial. We are too dependent on it by now to be capable of easy transition into natural environment should something happen to our artificial one.

Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:08 pm

"Man is a singular creature. He has a set of gifts which make him unique among the animals: so that, unlike them, he is not a figure in the landscape - he is a shaper of the landscape."
-Jacob Bronowski, The Ascent of Man

Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:43 am

So would do the beavers. And nobody wants to force beavers to leave their buildings, because they are part of nature. So what's your point?

Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:03 am

My point is that Molecular Evolution (proven part) = genetic deterioration over time. Therefore, extrapolating that to organisms should mean starting with nearly immortal and highly adaptable (=more genetically robust) organisms and ending with organism of a relatively short lifespan with highly limited ability to adapt. I am talking about humans and our evolution.

Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:03 am

This report, which I did on the IV INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE "ideological basis and scientific evidence for intelligent design in the genesis of life and the universe"

Life: the active situational model on the cell membrane, equipped with a polypeptide-nucleic technology

(https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater - ) :)

Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:20 am

Whatever this is, your link does not work.

Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:32 pm

Sorry, this pictures on Facebook, must register to see them.

Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:13 am

This presentation is already visible.
  Happy New Year!

Re: Evolution or De-evolution?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:48 pm

Cat wrote:I would like to start by clarifying the terminology for this post so that everyone is on the same page…

Facts:

1. Molecular evolution – refers to molecular changes over time (ex. Genetic mutations, lateral gene transfer, etc.) that have been proven to be able to affect phenotype changes (ex. Diseases, deformities, trait variations, etc.)

2. Natural selection – refers to survivor of the fittest phenomenon, a negative selection process that eliminates/limits reproduction of the “unfit” individuals.

3. Positive selection - a process of stimulating reproduction of individuals with particular trait over others.

What I would like to discuss is the idea of evolution as it commonly refers to evolution of human kind (along with other species). Evolution as such is used to describe the process of change from simple to more complex organisms. Evolution of all life forms from bacteria as represented by the phylogenic tree of life.

I, however, have a fundamental problem with this idea. This theory at its core has an implied assumption that was (to my knowledge) ever discussed. The assumption is that we (and any other species of today) are MORE advanced than our predecessors. And I don’t believe that that is the case.

Reasoning:

First fact that points toward the idea of our superiority is that our brain is larger than that of our ancestors. However, we should know by now that it’s not quantity but quality that matters. Now that larger than normal brains have been linked to autism, I think it’s time to rethink this conclusion. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16151044).

My second problem is the idea of genome duplication. At first the genome duplication was said to be the driving force of evolution by providing the genetic material for mutations leading to additional function development. Now they are saying that idea could not be substantiated and opted to conclude that genome duplication prevented extinction (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/2 ... l.pdf+html). That is actually more consistent with the observed genome deterioration over time (take Y chromosome as an example). But does it mean that new polyploid species are superior when compared to their predecessors PRIOR to genome deterioration over time??? OR was it more like recouping the original vigor???

Lastly, selective breeding and domestication of animals for a single trait via positive selection process can bring about variety of other changes by allowing other recessive traits (traits that natural selection process would have eliminated). Thus, we, humans, are primarily responsible for variation in domestic animals and not nature.(https://johnwade.ca/attachments/article ... mstudy.pdf). This raises the question of how can we eliminate evidence of evolution that results of our efforts from natural changes in plants and animals on this planet?

So, evolution or de-evolution? Are we moving toward perfection or away from it?

What do you think?


Any new thoughts anyone?

Re: Evolution or De-evolution?

Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:53 pm

Cat wrote:
Cat wrote:I would like to start by clarifying the terminology for this post so that everyone is on the same page…

Facts:

1. Molecular evolution – refers to molecular changes over time (ex. Genetic mutations, lateral gene transfer, etc.) that have been proven to be able to affect phenotype changes (ex. Diseases, deformities, trait variations, etc.)

2. Natural selection – refers to survivor of the fittest phenomenon, a negative selection process that eliminates/limits reproduction of the “unfit” individuals.

3. Positive selection - a process of stimulating reproduction of individuals with particular trait over others.

What I would like to discuss is the idea of evolution as it commonly refers to evolution of human kind (along with other species). Evolution as such is used to describe the process of change from simple to more complex organisms. Evolution of all life forms from bacteria as represented by the phylogenic tree of life.

I, however, have a fundamental problem with this idea. This theory at its core has an implied assumption that was (to my knowledge) ever discussed. The assumption is that we (and any other species of today) are MORE advanced than our predecessors. And I don’t believe that that is the case.

Reasoning:

First fact that points toward the idea of our superiority is that our brain is larger than that of our ancestors. However, we should know by now that it’s not quantity but quality that matters. Now that larger than normal brains have been linked to autism, I think it’s time to rethink this conclusion. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16151044).

My second problem is the idea of genome duplication. At first the genome duplication was said to be the driving force of evolution by providing the genetic material for mutations leading to additional function development. Now they are saying that idea could not be substantiated and opted to conclude that genome duplication prevented extinction (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/2 ... l.pdf+html). That is actually more consistent with the observed genome deterioration over time (take Y chromosome as an example). But does it mean that new polyploid species are superior when compared to their predecessors PRIOR to genome deterioration over time??? OR was it more like recouping the original vigor???

Lastly, selective breeding and domestication of animals for a single trait via positive selection process can bring about variety of other changes by allowing other recessive traits (traits that natural selection process would have eliminated). Thus, we, humans, are primarily responsible for variation in domestic animals and not nature.(https://johnwade.ca/attachments/article ... mstudy.pdf). This raises the question of how can we eliminate evidence of evolution that results of our efforts from natural changes in plants and animals on this planet?

So, evolution or de-evolution? Are we moving toward perfection or away from it?

What do you think?


Any new thoughts anyone?



Evolution is not teleological.

Wed Aug 14, 2013 11:42 am

The theory of evolution, as we currently understand it, is the development of the primary replicator in the primordial soup in a very short period of time since the initial cooling of the ocean (less than 4 billion years ago) until which date back to the most ancient remains of bacteria (about 3, 5 billion years ago) powerful, incredibly efficient Polypeptide-Nucleniic technology in that huge technological database - genes on DNA carrier through RNA input-output device is implemented in a polypeptide (protein) interface. Later, at the same time or in the process system appeared and user-developer - the consciousness that, in accordance with the idea of evolution gradually evolved to Homo Sapiens and continues to evolve to Homo Super Sapiens, which according to its hypothetical capabilities equivalent to GOD. thus, we have a typical religion. Scientific alternative - the theory of macro-de-evolution: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater

Re:

Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:27 pm

LeoPol wrote:The theory of evolution, as we currently understand it, is the development of the primary replicator in the primordial soup in a very short period of time since the initial cooling of the ocean (less than 4 billion years ago) until which date back to the most ancient remains of bacteria (about 3, 5 billion years ago) powerful, incredibly efficient Polypeptide-Nucleniic technology in that huge technological database - genes on DNA carrier through RNA input-output device is implemented in a polypeptide (protein) interface. Later, at the same time or in the process system appeared and user-developer - the consciousness that, in accordance with the idea of evolution gradually evolved to Homo Sapiens and continues to evolve to Homo Super Sapiens, which according to its hypothetical capabilities equivalent to GOD. thus, we have a typical religion. Scientific alternative - the theory of macro-de-evolution: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater



Your conclusion that biological evolution (which you didn't quite properly explain) leads to a "typical religion" is a non sequitur. What would follow at best is a finite quasi-theism (it doesn't) and even if it did lead to classical theism it still wouldn't follow it's a religion.
Post a reply