3 ,5 ,7 ,8 ,12 ,13 and 14 are really very silly, I could refute all of them quite well based only on their logic and sources but I really don't have the time right now, so let's just tackle 12.
First of all it assumes that we have been burying our dead for 185,000 years, this is speculation.
It says that;"If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years" what is it about a time scale that allows bones to last longer than 200,000 years. This has nothing to do with time scales it has everything to do with chemistry.
We have mummies from over 6000 years old that will barely tolerate being handled, the fact that they're mummies means that they have been remarkably well preserved.
A human body, if buried without embalming, will only be a skeleton and teeth within a year. After that first year the soils acidity will begin to break down the bones, depending on the acidity of the soil the lifespan of those bones will only be a few hundred to a couple thousand years. The circumstances required for a skeleton to last even several thousand years require either excessively complex burial rituals or extremely rare natural conditions.
So the evidence for both sides is equally flimsy is what you've proven there. Which is the point I was trying to make at the beginning before the evolutionists got all embarrassed and had to prove how closed-minded they could be. And you know what? Success.
I give up. "You can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think." I have failed completely in that endeavor so hat's off to you all.
I tried my best to be patient and polite but this is patronizing and insulting. Who was accusing who of poop slinging again?
I explained my point. It isnt as flimsy at all. One test says "I tested this reality for X and found Y happens when i perform this test or observe this phenomenon. Y is an indicator of X inside this reality therefor X exists in the physical plain." You are using this reality to demonstrate the existence of another thing in this reality. If you attempt to say "This tissue box exists inside this reality ergo the unicorn that created it exists OUTSIDE this reality" i draw a line. You cannot use the existence of something physical to prove something non physical or metaphysical. When you start trying to use physical evidence to prove the non physical that seems to me to be illogical. Im an agnostic atheist so i dont claim god CANT exist. Merely that no evidence exists to show he exists. Unlike this oxygen DOES have evidence to prove its existence based on physical evidence pointing to the existence of a physical element. I do not believe empirical evidence can show evidence of the metaphysical. Hence agnostic "Believing god to be untestable".
Tell us about your views. I'm curious. What do YOU believe?
I'm an agnostic. I studied evolution in school, but I am aware that i'm simply accepting one parties version of things. I am aware that the other parties version is generally considered weaker. I am also aware that I may not ever know the actual truth about it until I die, and perhaps not even then. I'm okay with that. I just think that when you become absolutely certain about something, you are closing the doors on all other possibilities. Once we do that as a people, we've stopped. We've peaked and will become no better. That's what I like about scientists, they see work that someone else has done and they expand on it. They don't just say "close enough" and stop. I think that science has done a great job of explaining a lot of the universe but there are things it can't explain. I've said earlier that i've seen evidence to give some credence to both sides. For the evolutionists out there, cats with thumbs, it's happening. It was the easiest argument in your defense and nobody grabbed it because it was too simple and yet so verifiable at the same time.
So I guess i'm an agnostic and a romantic. Sucks to be me
I theorize that I have heartburn due to the jalapenos I just ate, based on the evidence at hand, but I could be proven wrong by going to a doctor and finding out its an ulcer. I believe that there is a teapot in orbit between Mars and the sun, and I defy you to prove otherwise.
Okay you're getting my point and that's cool. Off-topic funny thought: If I had a time machine i'd go back to find a dead t-rex and pump a couple of .50 cal rounds into just so the guy digging it up would go "wtf? this one's been shot!". That would be really funny to me. Oh and really cruel as well I guess. Still kinda funny.
I think what it is, is that there is not a lot of proof in evolution. Sure you can show me a diagram of evolution, but did we really witness it? No. See if we evolved from monkeys would we have evolved together? Those monkeys you see in the wild are nothing more than primitive genetic copies of what possibly God created or random mutation.
See I don't believe in evolution because: First off, the occurrence of genetic mutation being successful are astronomical, and we seem to be the most dominate creatures on this entire planet who either got really, really, REALLY lucky or something put us here for a reason. Monkeys can replicate us in a certain physical form, but they can never think like us because they have no ability to. Such as speech and literature. Dreams and hope. Beliefs and Dispossession. Please a monkey is a monkey. A human is a human.
Evolution is nothing but created by stubborn atheist who try to disprove anything they think is not real. It's always about them, never about others. It just ignorant people who twist the world to THEIR desire. As a Christian, I find offensive to twist people's mind to think like yourself and never give them the freedom to think upon themselves.
And we find yet another example of someone who doesn't have the slightest clue on what evolution is. (Actually I'm not really sure if this guy is serious or is exercising his satire muscle)
1. Yes we do witness evolution, both in the wild and in the laboratory.
2. We didn't evolve from monkeys, no scientist suggests this and we did evolve together and are still evolving.
3. No one ever suggested monkeys weren't monkeys and humans weren't human. We have also taught sign language to chimps which also exhibit sings of culture, and dolphins method of communication may be almost as complex as our own.
4. Except not all evolutionist are atheist, in fact there are many religions people who believe in evolution and atheist that don't
5. The irony of your last statement is just too much..........
I am also aware that I may not ever know the actual truth about it until I die, and perhaps not even then. I'm okay with that. I just think that when you become absolutely certain about something, you are closing the doors on all other possibilities. Once we do that as a people, we've stopped. We've peaked and will become no better. That's what I like about scientists, they see work that someone else has done and they expand on it. They don't just say "close enough" and stop. I think that science has done a great job of explaining a lot of the universe but there are things it can't explain. I've said earlier that i've seen evidence to give some credence to both sides. For the evolutionists out there, cats with thumbs, it's happening. It was the easiest argument in your defense and nobody grabbed it because it was too simple and yet so verifiable at the same time.
So I guess i'm an agnostic and a romantic. Sucks to be me
Thats actually really nice. I like that. A lot actually. I feel much the same way. I feel our collected knowledge is the most beautiful thing we have ever accomplished. It shows effort, cooporation and the ability to work toward a common good that people often miss in their day to day lives. We should never stop looking for answers i agree. I just want the potential answers to be something i can study and test properly. I want real answers. I think we dont know what science can do yet. And we should keep looking until we find out. Also a romantic here, but nevermind. I can be soppy about how much i love science and humanity all day but thats beside the point. Its not that sucky
Do we breathe it? Then that is witness enough. Evolution was nothing more than history. And as we all know, history can be changed and corrupted whenever someone feels like it.
See if we evolved from monkeys would we have evolved together?
Please a monkey is a monkey. A human is a human.
Evolution is nothing but created by stubborn atheist who try to disprove anything they think is not real. It's always about them, never about others. It just ignorant people who twist the world to THEIR desire. As a Christian, I find offensive to twist people's mind to think like yourself and never give them the freedom to think upon themselves.
1. Agreed. No evidence this has been done here though.
2. No, as long as a niche exists in the jungle for a tree swinging creature such a creature will survive to fill this niche. Not all animals will evolve to fill one niche because it would leave another niche empty. If a creature is surviving just perfectly it will not evolve. Over population or lack of resources forced some apes to leave their habitat to a new one. This change caused selection for different traits. The apes that left that had to live in this new environment became different. Apes that remained in the jungle evolved to be better suited to a jungle. As such the ancient ape evolved to become both humans and the apes you see today.
3. Agreed. No one is saying otherwise.
4. Not so. I love and cherish all other people. I work in biology for the aim of saving lives and helping others like my hero Norman Borlaug. I like people to think for themselves. I dont like people refusing to seek knowlegde because they think they know something when its actually a misconception. After all you clearly had a few issues with evolution that can actually be explained, like point 2 in my post. I wish people had the power to do what they wished based on ALL the knowlegde and not just some. Thats why i think education should be better on evolution. Almost all issues with it are based on misconceptions.
Monster_user said:
You want to target individuals, and convince them that the single most importact fact of their life, is false.
These people are patriots, they believe themselves to be champions of virtue, and according to their definition you are calling them evil.
They believe that they have a lot to loose, and little to gain. What do you get out of disbelief? Better healthcare? Better pay? Better jobs? Better friends? The strength to get through your worst days? Hope for a better tomorrow? Contentment? Honestly, they would likely loose most of that. It's like the Matrix, red pill, or blue pill? How many of these people would really choose the red pill?
I am not targetting god, i have nothing against religion. Just misconceptions about evolution. If someone wants to reject evolution and they fully understand it i would be baffled but would be fine with that. But i think everyone should be equiped with ALL the knowlegde to make that decision for themselves and not some half assed lies about what evolution and science really are. I think they would be more free making a choice they fully understand than one where one side is heavily distorted. I think a person should have that basic right to know what they are doing is based on what is true. I dont mind what people choose. It saddens me to think people make choices based on falisified information. I dont want to destroy a code of ethics. Or a lifestyle. Youre talking like i hate religion. I dont. I hate ignorance on a topic. I dont like misinformation. I dont like people being unaware and being unaware they are unaware. I think knowledge should be free to everyone. And our choices shouldnt be restricted because someone lied to us about what one choice really is. Religion and evolution can cooexist. And i want that option freely available to all.
So evolution is a delusion? Think about it now: Schools won't teach religion or creation/Darwinism because its filled with delusion. A school would never fund a class unless it was to teach people of something of worth. History, Economics, Biology, and Mathematics... so on so forth. It has a foundation in our schools to teach kids these fundamentals. Evolution has no fundamentals because of it misconception.
I know you work in biology and understand some of these things, but there is really no evidence to support such... ideas.
So evolution is a delusion? Think about it now: Schools won't teach religion or creation/Darwinism because its filled with delusion. A school would never fund a class unless it was to teach people of something of worth. History, Economics, Biology, and Mathematics... so on so forth. It has a foundation in our schools to teach kids these fundamentals. Evolution has no fundamentals because of it misconception.
I know you work in biology and understand some of these things, but there is really no evidence to support such... ideas.
There is much evidence. Ive touched the fossil record, ive sequenced the DNA of a mutating evolving bacterium. Its the best explanation of how life came to be today. To say there is no evidence is just false. Fossils are real, bacteria are real, mutation and selection and all the forces involved are real and observed and evolution is just bringing all of that together. Im using my education on evolution to go somewhere in life to help people. I think thats worthwhile. Many simple questions like "Why didnt ALL apes evolve too?" are easily answered if someone took the time and patience to actually listen to you. Dont assume we are all angry closed minded people. If you have ANY questions about evolution im happy to answer them to the best of my ability. Any reason why it might be false at all. Im very tired though. My writing is becoming less succinct and more of a wall of text.
I do think about it. Every day when i open my book entitled "THE CELL" and study for my career. Its no delusion. Its the basis of my work and my aspirations. And its very well documented and evidenced.
I also suggest you try and get to know an atheist or two. We are not evil. No more than any other group of people. There is compassion and love in everyone. Id never bend another person to my will. All i want is for people to be able to make informed decisions. Do not judge others as evil, jesus said not to judge others critically and i agree with that part of what he said. We are as likely to be perfectly decent people as anyone else :3 Scanadavia is VERY highly atheist and they have a VERY low crime rate So we cant be all bad.
I think what it is, is that there is not a lot of proof in evolution. Sure you can show me a diagram of evolution, but did we really witness it? No. See if we evolved from monkeys would we have evolved together? Those monkeys you see in the wild are nothing more than primitive genetic copies of what possibly God created or random mutation.
See I don't believe in evolution because: First off, the occurrence of genetic mutation being successful are astronomical, and we seem to be the most dominate creatures on this entire planet who either got really, really, REALLY lucky or something put us here for a reason. Monkeys can replicate us in a certain physical form, but they can never think like us because they have no ability to. Such as speech and literature. Dreams and hope. Beliefs and Dispossession. Please a monkey is a monkey. A human is a human.
Evolution is nothing but created by stubborn atheist who try to disprove anything they think is not real. It's always about them, never about others. It just ignorant people who twist the world to THEIR desire. As a Christian, I find offensive to twist people's mind to think like yourself and never give them the freedom to think upon themselves.
And we find yet another example of someone who doesn't have the slightest clue on what evolution is. (Actually I'm not really sure if this guy is serious or is exercising his satire muscle)
1. Yes we do witness evolution, both in the wild and in the laboratory.
2. We didn't evolve from monkey, no scientist suggests this and we did evolve together.
3. No one ever suggested monkeys weren't monkeys and humans weren't human. We have also taught sign language to chimps which also exhibit sings of culture, and dolphins method of communication may be almost as complex as our own.
4. Except not all evolutionist are atheist, in fact there are many religions people who believe in evolution and atheist that don't
5. The irony of your last statement is just too much..........
1. No we don't. Evolution would take thousands of years to observe because of genetic mutation within cells.
2. Scientist always brag about having 90% of our DNA shared with them. Though, those test are false because we are unique in our own nature.
3. How do you know that their not just copying you? Monkeys show no amount of communication unless its physical movement.
4. I'll agree to that.
5. Their was no irony. Atheist will bend people to their liking because they are... evil, in my opinion. Except for some atheist that aren't totally abusive in their thoughts of others.
So evolution is a delusion? Think about it now: Schools won't teach religion or creation/Darwinism because its filled with delusion. A school would never fund a class unless it was to teach people of something of worth. History, Economics, Biology, and Mathematics... so on so forth. It has a foundation in our schools to teach kids these fundamentals. Evolution has no fundamentals because of it misconception.
I know you work in biology and understand some of these things, but there is really no evidence to support such... ideas.
1. Schools teach evolution and not creation for a reason.
2. Darwinism is a made up creationist term.
3. Nothing in modern biology makes sense without evolution.
4. Are you sure your not just trolling? There is mountains of evidence for evolution, I've shown and give evidence throughout this entire thread as well as a whole bunch of other people. Tell me what evidence you want and I'll provide it for you.
You're absolutely right. Looking at text online is much more verifiable than reading a book. I guess the only real barrier that stops people from looking at the evidence is that we can't travel back in time. Look, seriously i've stated how many times that i'm not taking sides. But some part of you has to realize that you were taught this by somebody and you believed them. That's it and there's nothing wrong with that and there shouldn't be any shame in admitting it. I was taught the same thing in school and until life experience intervened, I just accepted it without question.
Oh goody, the old "You weren't there" argument. You do realize that that argument necessarily casts the same doubt on forensic sciences, which actually produces some of the most reliable data available, do you not? By a similar token, witness testamony is actually among the LEAST reliable sources of data. Heck, the same argument allows for holocaust denial and practically embraces last-thursdayism. Skepticism is well and good, but insisting on eyewitnesses for data is the kind of folly that supports the idea that the world didn't exist before you were born.
So evolution is a delusion? Think about it now: Schools won't teach religion or creation/Darwinism because its filled with delusion. A school would never fund a class unless it was to teach people of something of worth. History, Economics, Biology, and Mathematics... so on so forth. It has a foundation in our schools to teach kids these fundamentals. Evolution has no fundamentals because of it misconception.
I know you work in biology and understand some of these things, but there is really no evidence to support such... ideas.
There is much evidence. Ive touched the fossil record, ive sequenced the DNA of a mutating evolving bacterium. Its the best explanation of how life came to be today. To say there is no evidence is just false. Fossils are real, bacteria are real, mutation and selection and all the forces involved are real and observed and evolution is just bringing all of that together. Im using my education on evolution to go somewhere in life to help people. I think thats worthwhile. Many simple questions like "Why didnt ALL apes evolve too?" are easily answered if someone took the time and patience to actually listen to you. Dont assume we are all angry closed minded people. If you have ANY questions about evolution im happy to answer them to the best of my ability. Any reason why it might be false at all. Im very tired though. My writing is becoming less succinct and more of a wall of text.
I do think about it. Every day when i open my book entitled "THE CELL" and study for my career. Its no delusion. Its the basis of my work and my aspirations. And its very well documented and evidenced.
Ok, Mister Biology. Fossils tell you absolutely nothing about about genetic structures! How do you even tell me such things, even to when fossils are nothing more than a skeleton's imprints. You should be pointing towards how cellular structures react to different... stimuli. If evolution is a thing, then it has to have a stimulation to change of how it reacts to that certain environment or certain degree in change.
Don't tell me anything more about mutation unless you got evidence of such. Because in truth, I was also someone who loved biology in school and learned all I could during my time, but truth is... their is really no evidence.
*You can't see oxygen, but you CAN verify its presence. You can't see evolution happening, but you can observe its results. You can't see gravity but you can pretty accurately and reliably predict its affects.
You can't see god and you CAN'T verify his presence either. He has no verifiable properties, nor means of measurement.
They are fundamentally different things, faith and science, as is Creationism and Evolution.
See and if I WAS a creationist (and i'm not) you left yourself wide open with that;
You can't SEE god but you can walk on the earth he created, eat the fruits of his labours etc. If the earth exists because god created it, then there is your measurement right there. You're either floating in a featureless void or god exists. So you can verify his existence by breathing the air he created, eating the animals he put there for you and walking on the ground he made.
So the evidence for both sides is equally flimsy is what you've proven there. Which is the point I was trying to make at the beginning before the evolutionists got all embarrassed and had to prove how closed-minded they could be. And you know what? Success.
I give up. "You can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think." I have failed completely in that endeavor so hat's off to you all.
"Prove that god exists."
"You are standing within his creation *gestures to the world around*"
"Prove that god created the world"
"The Bible says so."
"How does the bible saying so make it true?"
"Because God himself arbitrated it."
Rinse and repeat.
Heck, let's take that even further:
"Prove that god exists."
"You are standing within his creation *gestures to the world around*"
"Prove that god created the world"
"How else other then a intelligent design, could such complexity be created"
"By immeasurable scales and forces of time, energy and movement, how does complexity prove gods handiwork?"
...
Yeah I don't know where to take this reasoning. Eventually every argument directed at Faith boils down to God is unknowable and all powerful, therefore he did it. The only physically quantifiable source of his existence are Religious Texts and, besides the internal contradictions observable within those texts, virtually every major event that counts as "proof of god" can be disproved by scientific evidence and testing.
The Irony of your final remark is not lost on anyone debating with you I'm sure.
Look. Here is an analogy so you can visualise how I, and others, see this topic:
The universe is a puzzle. For ease of visualisation, let's call it a jigsaw. This jigsaw is not like other jigsaws in that we can't truly know what the final image is until the last piece is in place. What's more, the jigsaw does not get easier the further you progress, it actually gets harder.
Religion saw this puzzle first. They used the power of observation to put the simplest and most basic pieces together, giving them a really rough outline of this immense puzzle. They then, in all their excitement, guessed as to what the final image was. From this point on they started directing their solution towards this suspected finished image. Eventually their guess started to show signs of fallibility. This resulted in schisms among the problem solvers, creating a variety of alternative outcomes as to what the final image was. The problem still being that they are still guessing based off of very little.
Eventually things got so muddled and confused that they started to jam pieces in spots they didn't fit in and even threw away pieces that appeared to not fit anywhere. Long before they even finished a fraction of the puzzle, they started joining their "established" sections together and then decided to paint their vision of the finished image over the gaps. Then proceeded to frame the image and claim it was finished and that no one should touch it... or look too closely... or pretty much inquire about anything related to it other then to talk about the finished image and how amazing it is.
Of course you had multiple finished images all saying they were the "true" finished image and shit just got confusing and nasty as a result.
Then some young buck named science looked at this finished image a bit closer then religion would have wanted and saw all the flaws. The pieces that don't fit, the pieces that were missing (discarded) and the fact that a big gaping hole in the puzzle was just painted over.
Science though thatt was odd and decided to reconstruct the identifiable pieces in his own time. He was methodical, only taking small leaps of guess work to help focus his efforts, sometimes getting the run of himself and trying to solve pieces beyond his current comprehension, but always corrected himself when pieces stopped fitting. Eventually he had surpassed religion with a more complete image, though still far from being truly complete. From this point on his guesswork was more clever and calculated, basing his next actions off of observable patterns in the image. Even large gaps between chunks of finished segments were starting to show form trough these patterns. His guesswork started to become more detailed and defined, capable of predicting where the next piece would sit with frightening accuracy.
This is where science is now. The puzzle is far from complete and progress is slow... but it is certain. He acknowledges that the puzzle is not complete and that his guess work might not be accurate, so is willing to go back on segments he once though were correct if the patterns start to fall apart. But fortunately due to his methodical nature, this mistakes are few and when they do appear the damage is only minute, only requiring the reshuffling of minor pieces.
People are now interested in this Science guys attempt at the puzzle, not just because the image is coming out differently from all the past assumed outcomes, but that he willingly allows people to look at the image, question his reasoning and even help out if they want to. Science involves the admirers... he doesn't expect anything of them other then to respect the process of solving the puzzle and not to get too excited about the outcome as that can lead to misdirection.
Finally, Science also doesn't punish people for prodding at his logic, since to Science it's a win-win. Either he's right and the true image keeps taking shape over time, or he's wrong, changes his approach and the true image takes shape over time. At this point he knows enough to see what is working, the patterns all add up and fit nicely, the only pieces that he questions are the newest placed pieces, since they are still placed on hunches and assumptions based off of patterns, but he is not afraid to dismantle segments who's patterns are just falling apart.
Religion gave up on the goal of solving the puzzle, discarded the pieces that didn't fit his assumptions, jammed others into places they didn't fit and then painted the final image of what they envisioned long ago. They then framed it and put it up on the wall and said, "This is the answer to the puzzle!".
Science, young and ambitious, disagreed and started from scratch, this time without fooling himself into imagining what it would be, but rather let it organically show itself as he pieced it together. He developed processes and studied patterns all in the aim of finishing the puzzle, not achieving a desired result.
Religion started it but was too arrogant to see past his own vision. Science is now taking the helm and is determined to see the true finished puzzle. That is his only goal and he does it slowly and methodically.
Yes we do I've done this myself in a lab, it doesn't take thousands of years to observe just a few generations it's how we get new antibiotics, breeds of dogs, ring species, nylon eating bacteria. Where are you getting this information from? What do you what me to show you as proof?
http://aem.asm.org/content/61/5/2020.long
GildaTheGriffin said:
2. Scientist always brag about having 90% of our DNA shared with them. Though, those test are false because we are unique in our own nature.
So evolution is a delusion? Think about it now: Schools won't teach religion or creation/Darwinism because its filled with delusion. A school would never fund a class unless it was to teach people of something of worth. History, Economics, Biology, and Mathematics... so on so forth. It has a foundation in our schools to teach kids these fundamentals. Evolution has no fundamentals because of it misconception.
I know you work in biology and understand some of these things, but there is really no evidence to support such... ideas.
1. Schools teach evolution and not creation for a reason.
2. Darwinism is a made up creationist term.
3. Nothing in modern biology makes sense without evolution.
4. Are you sure your not just trolling? There is mountains of evidence for evolution, I've shown and give evidence throughout this entire thread as well as a whole bunch of other people. Tell me what evidence you want and I'll provide it for you.
1. Schools don't teach evolution, because Christian/Catholic parents don't want their kids being taught something that they don't agree on. Schools are then forced (By kids being pulled out from their parents) not to teach anything related to religion, creationism, Darwinism, or evolution.
2. Darwinism is a word, not a term. Go look it up.
3. Modern Biology comes from what we already learned about biology in the beginning, though somethings are being observed to learn about it further on.
4. I love debates, it allows me to learn and teach other what I think. I like to have opinionated discussions with people. I far from being a troll.
Ok, Mister Biology. Fossils tell you absolutely nothing about about genetic structures! How do you even tell me such things, even to when fossils are nothing more than a skeleton's imprints. You should be pointing towards how cellular structures react to different... stimuli. If evolution is a thing, then it has to have a stimulation to change of how it reacts to that certain environment or certain degree in change.
Don't tell me anything more about mutation unless you got evidence of such. Because in truth, I was also someone who loved biology in school and learned all I could during my time, but truth is... their is really no evidence.
Ok, Mister Biology. Fossils tell you absolutely nothing about about genetic structures! How do you even tell me such things, even to when fossils are nothing more than a skeleton's imprints. You should be pointing towards how cellular structures react to different... stimuli. If evolution is a thing, then it has to have a stimulation to change of how it reacts to that certain environment or certain degree in change.
Don't tell me anything more about mutation unless you got evidence of such. Because in truth, I was also someone who loved biology in school and learned all I could during my time, but truth is... their is really no evidence.
Im not really sure what youre asking in the first part? Sorry but it seems like english isnt your first language and im trying to understand. Also im extremely tired. The fossils show us that slowly some creatures died out and very similar creatures took their place, a sort of transitional phase is shown where skeletons of creatures between two organisms have been found many times. Many "Missing links" if you will. It clearly shows how an organism changed slowly over time in shape and size.
Ok this is quite complicated so ill try and make it less... technical ok? Here is some DNA proof. There is a virus known as "Endogenous retroviruses". When it infects you it injects its DNA into your cells and that DNA sits in your cells forever. When you have kids those kids will have that viral DNA too. It isnt infectious by touch or anything, its just a left over from when you were infected, the non functional virus DNA if you want thats just lying around after it did its job. This DNA doesnt always stick around but when it does its forever, as in millions of years. This event is EXTREMELY rare where it sticks around because for it to be passed on two things need to happen:
1. It needs to be a virus that succeeds in getting its DNA in your cells and the DNA isnt destroyed in defense by your cells.
2. Im gonna be blunt. You need to get infected in the cells that make your sperm. You need a ball infection.
So the chances of this happening are extremely rare. In the whole of human evolution this has happened 7 times in about 3 million years ish.
So when we find two species with EXACTLY the same bit of virus DNA left hanging around its a good indicator they had a common ancestor which was infected by a virus.
The virus DNA can be sequenced to check if its the exact same. As a matter of fact there are 7 lengths of separate virus DNA in our cells all from different virus's that infected our ancestor millions of years ago. Apes that are close to us have these 7 lengths of the exact same virus DNA too. This is not something we have ever found between species that are not related very much at all. It shows that in our past the same 7 virus's infected our ancestor. The chance of having our past ancestors from both apes and humans be infected and injected with the VERY rare DNA from the EXACT same virus's is VERY small. As such we assume they shared a distant ancestor. I hope that makes sense.
MRSA is total proof of mutation. Of how it functions and works. Like i said you can sequence the DNA of a bacteria that descended from another bacteria, so it should be genetically identical, but it has different DNA! Because a mutation occured. Ive physically done this. I cant speak for you but i know it happens. The evidence is plentiful
MRSA is a bacteria that previously could be killed with anti biotics. We treated it with anti biotics whenever we saw it until one day it stopped working. When we searched in depth we found the anti biotic we used to use didnt kill MRSA anymoreat all. A few MRSA bacteria had mutated to become resistant, survived our anti biotic treatment, and then bred to produce an entire population of anti biotic resistant bacteria. If you take some of almost any bacteria and keep killing the population eventually some will survive. They survived because they have the mutation to be resistant to the anti biotic. They then breed and make a large amount of resistant bacteria.
I hope that helped. Im barely spelling anymore... im going to get some sleep. Ill try and be helpful. Also im not evil... just for the record. I have nothing but respect and love for everyone that i interact with... i dont like the idea of someone assuming im evil just because i dont believe in god :C i try and be the best person i can be. Tired me is rather irrational...
You're absolutely right. Looking at text online is much more verifiable than reading a book. I guess the only real barrier that stops people from looking at the evidence is that we can't travel back in time.
So the thing stopping you from examining the evidence is that you refuse to learn what the evidence IS.
DracoSuave said:
The scientific process is open and transparent. Anyone can look at data, and anyone else can reproduce their work. That's the whole point of it. There's no mysteries or closed doors or secret knowledges or anything like that. The only barriers are personal: Do you have the ability to understand it?
This is especially true in paleontology, from what I understand. I've heard stories of highly-respected paleontologists (professionals who actually get paid to do the job) deferring to the opinions of blue-collar workers because those guys were more knowledgeable about the fossil type in question. A lot of paleontologists are hobbyists. They work a regular job, and then find fossils and do research on the side. They are just as respected as the people who have "paleontologist" on their business cards, because they have the knowledge and data.
Forget it man he's obviously trolling us, figured that out the minute he said that Chimps sharing 90% of our DNA was just a false study especially since it's 98%. So even on the off chance he is serious anything that you show him that contradict his narrow view he'll just write off as false or lies.
1. Im really tired. Like what am i doing i was at work at 6 this morning why am i awake... i answered out of instinct.
2. This is my degree. I need to revise and remember this. Good practice
3. My ultimate dream is to be a Carl Sagan of biology so i can share it with everyone. I think its beautiful. This is good practice at making biology accessible to people.
4. Im likely going to become a doctor if my plans go well and i dont become a famous biology celebrity (lets be honest its not happening). If i cant explain complex biology to a patient even when they are screaming and hate me ive failed at my future job. Infinite patience is needed and i like to test myself by taking part in these things. I dont have a choice of getting frustrated and giving up when im explaining to a furious or distraught patient the things we need to do to save his life. I need to get good at this so im starting now.
5. I like making lists.
I just like talking about biology in general. My passion is free to share and i like writing about it.
What is stopping anyone from verifying it? What is stopping anyone from going and doing the research and looking at the data, and checking the processes by which the data is acquired and vetting it for themselves?
No really, what barriers are there that exist that stop people from looking at the evidence for themselves?
You're absolutely right. Looking at text online is much more verifiable than reading a book. I guess the only real barrier that stops people from looking at the evidence is that we can't travel back in time. Look, seriously i've stated how many times that i'm not taking sides. But some part of you has to realize that you were taught this by somebody and you believed them. That's it and there's nothing wrong with that and there shouldn't be any shame in admitting it. I was taught the same thing in school and until life experience intervened, I just accepted it without question.
Okay hot shot. I'm a paleontologist. That's what I do for a living. I've seen the evidence with my own eyes--the fossils, and the stones. Well, not ALL the evidence, obviously; there's far, far too much for anyone to see in one lifetime (there's too much in the Smithsonian for that--I can attest to that from personal experience [that's where I learned that I can't look at Callianasids for more than 20 minutes]). I've drawn my conclusions based on the rocks and fossils I've seen and studied, including rocks on two continents, five countries, and on both coasts of the USA.
Now that I've got your annoying Poisoning the Well out of the way, what's your next trick for dismissing evolutionary theory?
Ok, Mister Biology. Fossils tell you absolutely nothing about about genetic structures! How do you even tell me such things, even to when fossils are nothing more than a skeleton's imprints.
This is not, strictly speaking, true. Recent studies with Cetacean evolution have demonstrated that genetic evolution can in fact be traced through the fossil record. It was quite an interesting paper, once you got past the mind-numbing morphological aspects.
There have also been genetic studies on dessicated fossils, including a sloth hide found in a cave in Nevada and coprolites. Never got into coprolite studies, despite their information potential. Too limited, for one thing, and after I caught that virus from a fossil rat midden I'm a tad gunshy.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
