Quote:“Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.”
Woodrow Wilson, 1922
dmacfour - I spend a decent amount of time in Woodrow Wilson's birth twon and even then, I hate to break it to you but he was a bad president.
How so? I literally don't know anything about him.
So is choosing the most desirable mate. That isn't always possible. What is evolving? It's merely changing to meet environmental changes.
Non of which explains how we got here in the first place.
"Isn't always possible" doesn't change "what usually happens". If you were born with a beneficial mutation, your chances of beating out everyone else go up, as does the chance that your offspring will. Members of the population without that trait will have less and less of a chance of reproducing or surviving in the place of someone with that trait, so they died off. Eventually (given a significant amount of time) the whole population of that species has that trait. 4 billion years, constant random mutation, and a few other things more than explain how we got here.
Let's say that the earth becomes insanely hot in the future, and puts a strain on the human race. Any human with a genetic makeup or mutates to survive in that environment will live while others die. The human race is evolving to survive in that environment, as people with that trait gradually replace anyone without.
But that still does not account for actual physical forces outside the body that indeed alters DNA structure. Species adapt to climate, gravitational pull and their environment. That is not natural selection. It also does not go against the theory of life being a creation.
I don't actually know what you're talking about. The body changes to maintain homeostasis, which isn't a DNA level mutation. We evolved to have that ability.
Maybe you're talking about changes in gene expression? If that's the case, nothing about the DNA is changing. Every cell has the same DNA, but certain parts of it are turned on or off depending on the cell. The environment can alter gene expression, but it's still the same DNA.
exercise can change your DNA, and yes I am talking about certain aspects of it being turned off. They have been able to replicate a dinosaur tail using a chicken egg. All life has a common link. So people saying we evolved from "x" are basically stating that our dna has been altered over time and generations. Yes, natural selection plays a role. Certain features that a species finds attractive will be more prevalent in the gene pool. Less intelligent species tend to die out...etc
However, this has nothing to do with life being created opposed to happening by chance. There has to be a beginning.
(07-08-2013 04:20 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote: So is choosing the most desirable mate. That isn't always possible. What is evolving? It's merely changing to meet environmental changes.
Non of which explains how we got here in the first place.
"Isn't always possible" doesn't change "what usually happens". If you were born with a beneficial mutation, your chances of beating out everyone else go up, as does the chance that your offspring will. Members of the population without that trait will have less and less of a chance of reproducing or surviving in the place of someone with that trait, so they died off. Eventually (given a significant amount of time) the whole population of that species has that trait. 4 billion years, constant random mutation, and a few other things more than explain how we got here.
Let's say that the earth becomes insanely hot in the future, and puts a strain on the human race. Any human with a genetic makeup or mutates to survive in that environment will live while others die. The human race is evolving to survive in that environment, as people with that trait gradually replace anyone without.
But that still does not account for actual physical forces outside the body that indeed alters DNA structure. Species adapt to climate, gravitational pull and their environment. That is not natural selection. It also does not go against the theory of life being a creation.
I don't actually know what you're talking about. The body changes to maintain homeostasis, which isn't a DNA level mutation. We evolved to have that ability.
Maybe you're talking about changes in gene expression? If that's the case, nothing about the DNA is changing. Every cell has the same DNA, but certain parts of it are turned on or off depending on the cell. The environment can alter gene expression, but it's still the same DNA.
exercise can change your DNA, and yes I am talking about certain aspects of it being turned off. They have been able to replicate a dinosaur tail using a chicken egg. All life has a common link. So people saying we evolved from "x" are basically stating that our dna has been altered over time and generations. Yes, natural selection plays a role. Certain features that a species finds attractive will be more prevalent in the gene pool. Less intelligent species tend to die out...etc
However, this has nothing to do with life being created opposed to happening by chance. There has to be a beginning.
DNA and genes aren't the same thing. Genes can be turned on and off, but the DNA stays the same. If you're replicating a dinosaur tail from a chicken egg, you're playing around with what genes are expressed, not the actual makeup of the DNA. The common link you're talking about is that the chicken evolved from something more ancient, and part of the genetic code is still there.
I guess that's beside the point. The most fundamental element of evolution is random chance (random mutation). All of the other concepts that make up evolution are based on random mutations occurring. You can speculate that life was sparked by something, aliens tampered with DNA at some point in history, or that the universe was started in just such a way that a chain of events would lead to humans, but you can't say that evolution isn't a random process. At that point, you're talking about something else entirely.
(This post was last modified: 07-08-2013 11:23 PM by dmacfour.)
(07-08-2013 06:01 PM)dmacfour Wrote: "Isn't always possible" doesn't change "what usually happens". If you were born with a beneficial mutation, your chances of beating out everyone else go up, as does the chance that your offspring will. Members of the population without that trait will have less and less of a chance of reproducing or surviving in the place of someone with that trait, so they died off. Eventually (given a significant amount of time) the whole population of that species has that trait. 4 billion years, constant random mutation, and a few other things more than explain how we got here.
Let's say that the earth becomes insanely hot in the future, and puts a strain on the human race. Any human with a genetic makeup or mutates to survive in that environment will live while others die. The human race is evolving to survive in that environment, as people with that trait gradually replace anyone without.
But that still does not account for actual physical forces outside the body that indeed alters DNA structure. Species adapt to climate, gravitational pull and their environment. That is not natural selection. It also does not go against the theory of life being a creation.
I don't actually know what you're talking about. The body changes to maintain homeostasis, which isn't a DNA level mutation. We evolved to have that ability.
Maybe you're talking about changes in gene expression? If that's the case, nothing about the DNA is changing. Every cell has the same DNA, but certain parts of it are turned on or off depending on the cell. The environment can alter gene expression, but it's still the same DNA.
exercise can change your DNA, and yes I am talking about certain aspects of it being turned off. They have been able to replicate a dinosaur tail using a chicken egg. All life has a common link. So people saying we evolved from "x" are basically stating that our dna has been altered over time and generations. Yes, natural selection plays a role. Certain features that a species finds attractive will be more prevalent in the gene pool. Less intelligent species tend to die out...etc
However, this has nothing to do with life being created opposed to happening by chance. There has to be a beginning.
DNA and genes aren't the same thing. Genes can be turned on and off, but the DNA stays the same. If you're replicating a dinosaur tail from a chicken egg, you're playing around with what genes are expressed, not the actual makeup of the DNA. The common link you're talking about is that the chicken evolved from something more ancient, and part of the genetic code is still there.
I guess that's beside the point. The most fundamental element of evolution is random chance (random mutation). All of the other concepts that make up evolution are based on random mutations occurring. You can speculate that life was sparked by something, aliens tampered with DNA at some point in history, or that the universe was started in just such a way that a chain of events would lead to humans, but you can't say that evolution isn't a random process. At that point, you're talking about something else entirely.
That's the rub. I don't think it is random. Can I prove it? No. Can you prove it is random? No. Nevertheless, the theory of creationism does not go against evolution. Again, science can only explain what was created or not created. It cannot yet explain the actual origin.
(07-08-2013 06:40 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote: But that still does not account for actual physical forces outside the body that indeed alters DNA structure. Species adapt to climate, gravitational pull and their environment. That is not natural selection. It also does not go against the theory of life being a creation.
I don't actually know what you're talking about. The body changes to maintain homeostasis, which isn't a DNA level mutation. We evolved to have that ability.
Maybe you're talking about changes in gene expression? If that's the case, nothing about the DNA is changing. Every cell has the same DNA, but certain parts of it are turned on or off depending on the cell. The environment can alter gene expression, but it's still the same DNA.
exercise can change your DNA, and yes I am talking about certain aspects of it being turned off. They have been able to replicate a dinosaur tail using a chicken egg. All life has a common link. So people saying we evolved from "x" are basically stating that our dna has been altered over time and generations. Yes, natural selection plays a role. Certain features that a species finds attractive will be more prevalent in the gene pool. Less intelligent species tend to die out...etc
However, this has nothing to do with life being created opposed to happening by chance. There has to be a beginning.
DNA and genes aren't the same thing. Genes can be turned on and off, but the DNA stays the same. If you're replicating a dinosaur tail from a chicken egg, you're playing around with what genes are expressed, not the actual makeup of the DNA. The common link you're talking about is that the chicken evolved from something more ancient, and part of the genetic code is still there.
I guess that's beside the point. The most fundamental element of evolution is random chance (random mutation). All of the other concepts that make up evolution are based on random mutations occurring. You can speculate that life was sparked by something, aliens tampered with DNA at some point in history, or that the universe was started in just such a way that a chain of events would lead to humans, but you can't say that evolution isn't a random process. At that point, you're talking about something else entirely.
That's the rub. I don't think it is random. Can I prove it? No. Can you prove it is random? No. Nevertheless, the theory of creationism does not go against evolution. Again, science can only explain what was created or not created. It cannot yet explain the actual origin.
(07-08-2013 07:44 PM)dmacfour Wrote: I don't actually know what you're talking about. The body changes to maintain homeostasis, which isn't a DNA level mutation. We evolved to have that ability.
Maybe you're talking about changes in gene expression? If that's the case, nothing about the DNA is changing. Every cell has the same DNA, but certain parts of it are turned on or off depending on the cell. The environment can alter gene expression, but it's still the same DNA.
exercise can change your DNA, and yes I am talking about certain aspects of it being turned off. They have been able to replicate a dinosaur tail using a chicken egg. All life has a common link. So people saying we evolved from "x" are basically stating that our dna has been altered over time and generations. Yes, natural selection plays a role. Certain features that a species finds attractive will be more prevalent in the gene pool. Less intelligent species tend to die out...etc
However, this has nothing to do with life being created opposed to happening by chance. There has to be a beginning.
DNA and genes aren't the same thing. Genes can be turned on and off, but the DNA stays the same. If you're replicating a dinosaur tail from a chicken egg, you're playing around with what genes are expressed, not the actual makeup of the DNA. The common link you're talking about is that the chicken evolved from something more ancient, and part of the genetic code is still there.
I guess that's beside the point. The most fundamental element of evolution is random chance (random mutation). All of the other concepts that make up evolution are based on random mutations occurring. You can speculate that life was sparked by something, aliens tampered with DNA at some point in history, or that the universe was started in just such a way that a chain of events would lead to humans, but you can't say that evolution isn't a random process. At that point, you're talking about something else entirely.
That's the rub. I don't think it is random. Can I prove it? No. Can you prove it is random? No. Nevertheless, the theory of creationism does not go against evolution. Again, science can only explain what was created or not created. It cannot yet explain the actual origin.
Evolution isn't a theory about how life began.
That is absolutely not true because it is not proven. You know that. Come on man. You cannot disprove a creator.
(07-08-2013 09:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote: exercise can change your DNA, and yes I am talking about certain aspects of it being turned off. They have been able to replicate a dinosaur tail using a chicken egg. All life has a common link. So people saying we evolved from "x" are basically stating that our dna has been altered over time and generations. Yes, natural selection plays a role. Certain features that a species finds attractive will be more prevalent in the gene pool. Less intelligent species tend to die out...etc
However, this has nothing to do with life being created opposed to happening by chance. There has to be a beginning.
DNA and genes aren't the same thing. Genes can be turned on and off, but the DNA stays the same. If you're replicating a dinosaur tail from a chicken egg, you're playing around with what genes are expressed, not the actual makeup of the DNA. The common link you're talking about is that the chicken evolved from something more ancient, and part of the genetic code is still there.
I guess that's beside the point. The most fundamental element of evolution is random chance (random mutation). All of the other concepts that make up evolution are based on random mutations occurring. You can speculate that life was sparked by something, aliens tampered with DNA at some point in history, or that the universe was started in just such a way that a chain of events would lead to humans, but you can't say that evolution isn't a random process. At that point, you're talking about something else entirely.
That's the rub. I don't think it is random. Can I prove it? No. Can you prove it is random? No. Nevertheless, the theory of creationism does not go against evolution. Again, science can only explain what was created or not created. It cannot yet explain the actual origin.
Evolution isn't a theory about how life began.
That is absolutely not true because it is not proven. You know that. Come on man. You cannot disprove a creator.
The word you're looking for is ambigenesis, not evolution. Evolution is extremely well supported, ambiogenesis is not. Saying you can't disprove a creator is like saying you can't disprove unicorns. Cause you can't.
(This post was last modified: 07-09-2013 12:18 AM by dmacfour.)
