Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

A companion to the Homestar Runner Wiki
It is currently Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:36 pm

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 854 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29  Next

Pick the response that most accurately applies.
I believe in evolution and I am not an atheist. 19%  19%  [ 15 ]
I believe in evolution and I am an atheist. 44%  44%  [ 34 ]
I am a young earth creationist. 13%  13%  [ 10 ]
I am an old earth creationist. 9%  9%  [ 7 ]
I believe in Intelligent Design. 5%  5%  [ 4 ]
I don't know what to believe. 3%  3%  [ 2 ]
Other. 8%  8%  [ 6 ]
Total votes : 78
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:37 pm
Posts: 2455
Location: oh god how did this get here I am not good with computer
Fair enough. For the record, I too am a Creationist, I just wanted to make sure we had the burden in the right area.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:08 am 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
I'm not claiming Magna is incorrect... I'm saying he might be right, but I don't think he is.

Magna is the one saying that I am incorrect, so he should be able to prove to my how I am wrong.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:57 am
Posts: 2981
Location: Oklahoma City
StrongRad wrote:
To say life spontaneously sprang forth from a puddle of random goo is no less extraordinary than that some mysterious, all-powerful being snapped their fingers and made it all appear.


I dunno. Biological processes all boil down to chemistry and physics. It all revolves around DNA, and our bodies are just really, really complicated carriers and replicators of it. Considering that the very existence of all life on earth currently revolves around this bit of chemistry, I don't think it's a big stretch to believe that it originated in chemistry.

Especially when you consider the vast number of planets and stars in the universe. Even if there is a 1 in quadrillion chance of intelligent life forming on a given planet, there would be almost a 100% chance that life would evolve on at least one of them. The universe is that big.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:06 am
Posts: 966
Location: Locked out....
furrykef wrote:
Even if there is a 1 in quadrillion chance of intelligent life forming on a given planet, there would be almost a 100% chance that life would evolve on at least one of them. The universe is that big.
Alright, let's assume you're right. It has been shown that chemicals that were supposedly on the early Earth could have formed organic materials. Then, amazingly, these molecules decided to bunch together and form useless membranes and other useless pieces, which then became the vital parts of simple living organisms (according to the current model for the theory of evolution). I say that's impossible, but let's assume it happened.

We all know the story, these things supposedly grew and changed over billions of years and became everything there is on Earth now. That supposedly happened through evolution by natural selection. Now, I don't have a problem with natural selection: the environment can change, to favor organisms with certain characteristics, and the rest of the population dies. But the theory of evolution relies not on on natural selection, but on this surviving population then becoming more diverse so it can happen again.

So the population then has to have mutations. Mutations that actually benefit the organism in terms of it's survival. Riiiiiight. So an organism is somehow mutated, and instead of causing cancer or a negative genetic change as usual, the mutagen finds the perfect spot in the DNA sequence to alter a gene to create a new version of that gene. Then the changed organism has offspring that are also altered in a good way. Then, like clockwork, another climate change gets rid of the old type of the species.

That sounds a little too intricate and complex too happen randomly. Even over billions of years. Unless there was some intelligent designer controlling each part. Oops! That's not scientifically possible! So if life did somehow randomly form, there is a 99.99% chance that we would stay as small prokaryotic organisms swimming around in a puddle. Isn't that annoying!

_________________
SIBHoD.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:57 am
Posts: 2981
Location: Oklahoma City
But we have already empirically observed microevolution. And there's pretty much no reason microevolution doesn't naturally lead to macroevolution over a long period of time. I'm afraid that pretty much shoots a hole clear through your argument.

Also, who's to say that the membranes and such that evolved were useless at first? There's nothing in the theory of evolution that requires useless mutations.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:14 pm
Posts: 8899
Location: looking at my post and/or profile
Biscuithead wrote:
furrykef wrote:
Even if there is a 1 in quadrillion chance of intelligent life forming on a given planet, there would be almost a 100% chance that life would evolve on at least one of them. The universe is that big.
Alright, let's assume you're right. It has been shown that chemicals that were supposedly on the early Earth could have formed organic materials. Then, amazingly, these molecules decided to bunch together and form useless membranes and other useless pieces, which then became the vital parts of simple living organisms (according to the current model for the theory of evolution). I say that's impossible, but let's assume it happened.

We all know the story, these things supposedly grew and changed over billions of years and became everything there is on Earth now. That supposedly happened through evolution by natural selection. Now, I don't have a problem with natural selection: the environment can change, to favor organisms with certain characteristics, and the rest of the population dies. But the theory of evolution relies not on on natural selection, but on this surviving population then becoming more diverse so it can happen again.

So the population then has to have mutations. Mutations that actually benefit the organism in terms of it's survival. Riiiiiight. So an organism is somehow mutated, and instead of causing cancer or a negative genetic change as usual, the mutagen finds the perfect spot in the DNA sequence to alter a gene to create a new version of that gene. Then the changed organism has offspring that are also altered in a good way. Then, like clockwork, another climate change gets rid of the old type of the species.

That sounds a little too intricate and complex too happen randomly. Even over billions of years. Unless there was some intelligent designer controlling each part. Oops! That's not scientifically possible! So if life did somehow randomly form, there is a 99.99% chance that we would stay as small prokaryotic organisms swimming around in a puddle. Isn't that annoying!


You're stating this way too "I know it's true because it's what I believe in and that means that it is undeniably right and everything else is wrong and I don't care what you say you're still wrong".

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:18 pm
Posts: 9
Location: Waitin' at the bus stamp
Biscuithead wrote:
We all know the story, these things supposedly grew and changed over billions of years and became everything there is on Earth now. That supposedly happened through evolution by natural selection. Now, I don't have a problem with natural selection: the environment can change, to favor organisms with certain characteristics, and the rest of the population dies. But the theory of evolution relies not on on natural selection, but on this surviving population then becoming more diverse so it can happen again.


This is incorrect. The environment does not change to favor organisms; organisms change to be better suited towards the environment. And no, the theory of evolution relies almost entirely on natural selection. It makes no sense that the changing environment would produce diversity. Organisms that contain traits that allow them to reproduce more often are favored by their environment and can pass these traits to their offspring, eventually forming a more "fit" species.

Biscuithead wrote:
So the population then has to have mutations. Mutations that actually benefit the organism in terms of it's survival. Riiiiiight. So an organism is somehow mutated, and instead of causing cancer or a negative genetic change as usual, the mutagen finds the perfect spot in the DNA sequence to alter a gene to create a new version of that gene. Then the changed organism has offspring that are also altered in a good way. Then, like clockwork, another climate change gets rid of the old type of the species.


Your logic here is flawed. Mutations have very little impact on slowly reproducing organisms, such as ourselves. However, early unicellular organisms would have a reproduction rate exponentially greater than more complex organisms. The bacteria E.coli can reproduce every 20 minutes in a favorable environment; in the human colon, E. Coli can produce 2,000,000,000 offspring every day. The chances of a spontaneous mutation in an E. Coli gene runs at about 1x10^-7 per cell division, meaning 2000 bacteria created each day with a mutation in that gene. Combine this with the fact that there are 4300 E. Coli genes: 2000x4300=8,600,000 mutations per day per human host. The point being that while individually rare, mutations can have an enormous impact on a rapidly producing species.
Now if early organisms reproduced at a fraction of the rate that E. Coli does, mutations would still have a major impact on their development. You're right in claiming that mutations can have detrimental effects; however, a unicellular organism cannot develop cancer, sickle cell, or huntingtons. More than likely, death would be the number one result. If the cell dies, so be it. But if the mutation is beneficial, no matter how unlikely an event, all of its progeny will receive the benefit, become better suited to their environment and reproduce more successfully.
Mutation, however, has little or no benefit towards more complex organisms such as ourselves. For every beneficial mutation in a human, there are millions that cause death or severe handicap. For multicellular organisms, diversity arises through the recombination of chromosomes through sexual intercourse. This recombination produces diversity much, much quicker than mutation. This accounts for the massive diversity in animals and plants.

First post, btw :ehsteve:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:06 am
Posts: 966
Location: Locked out....
sdrawkcaB wrote:
Mutation, however, has little or no benefit towards more complex organisms such as ourselves. For every beneficial mutation in a human, there are millions that cause death or severe handicap. For multicellular organisms, diversity arises through the recombination of chromosomes through sexual intercourse. This recombination produces diversity much, much quicker than mutation. This accounts for the massive diversity in animals and plants.

This is exactly my point. I know that mutation can affect microscopic organisms. The only reason I began by talking about simple prokaryotic organisms was that I was going to outline the vast differences between the most complex prokaryotes and the least complex eukaryotes, which supposedly evolved directly from them. But I thought it might get too complicated and confusing, so I talked about mutations instead.

Anyway, you have outlined my point well: it is very unlikely that a mutation would beneficially alter a complex multicellular organism. The diversity arising from random segregation, recombination and crossing over of chromosomes in sexual reproduction makes an organism have a different combination of genes to it's parents. Yes, this produces diversity within a population, but only so far as to create many organisms with different combinations of the same genes.

If the process of natural selection then occurred repeatedly and the only thing creating diversity in the population was sexual reproduction, this would result in a continual loss of biodiversity. Some genotypes would remain while others were eliminated from the population. So the theory of evolution relies heavily on mutation to introduce new genes into the population and increase diversity again.

So the diversity from sexual reproduction can not lead to a chimp becoming a human. This relies on many, many beneficial mutations occurring, and as you said, mutation can have little to no benefit on a multicellular organism. It is almost always detrimental.

furrykef wrote:
But we have already empirically observed microevolution. And there's pretty much no reason microevolution doesn't naturally lead to macroevolution over a long period of time. I'm afraid that pretty much shoots a hole clear through your argument.
I think I also answered this argument above. "Microevolution" is nothing more than the loss of diversity through natural selection. A species may appear different under different climatic or other pressures, but that is only because some of the variants of the species have died as they could not survive under the pressures. There is no new diversity.

_________________
SIBHoD.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:57 am
Posts: 2981
Location: Oklahoma City
Biscuithead wrote:
This relies on many, many beneficial mutations occurring, and as you said, mutation can have little to no benefit on a multicellular organism. It is almost always detrimental.


That's not what sdrawkcaB said. sdrawkcaB said it would have little effect, not little benefit, and didn't say anything near "it is almost always detrimental". Don't twist other people's arguments.

Where do you get this idea from, anyway? What scientific research has proven or even suggested that mutations are "almost always detrimental"?

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:18 pm
Posts: 9
Location: Waitin' at the bus stamp
Biscuithead wrote:
If the process of natural selection then occurred repeatedly and the only thing creating diversity in the population was sexual reproduction, this would result in a continual loss of biodiversity. Some genotypes would remain while others were eliminated from the population. So the theory of evolution relies heavily on mutation to introduce new genes into the population and increase diversity again.


This makes no sense; recombining chromosomes can't result in a loss in diversity. Through crossing over, chromosomes are proliferated throughout a species. Organisms mate and produce offspring that contain combinations of the parents' DNA. These offspring then mate with other offspring, which also contain combination of parental DNA. Crossing over and random fertilization together can produce literally trillions of possible genotypes; each of those unique genotypes can be combined with one of an equally enormous number of genotypes, producing virtually infinite diversity.
This diversity of genotypes results in an equally diverse assortment of phenotypes. Certain phenotypes result in a beneficial adaptation, which in turn increases the odds of proliferation and further diversity. This is why a single beneficial mutation, no matter how rare, can have a great influence on a species. These mutations then accumulate over millions of years, eventually producing new species.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:06 am
Posts: 966
Location: Locked out....
Ok sdrawcaB, I don't think you understand what I was saying. Yes sexual reproduction produces different genotypes or combinations of genes in a species, but it never produces different genes. So this is not evidence for evolution, for a change to occur across a whole species a beneficial mutation is required. So for a chimp to become a person, many beneficial mutations are required.

And furrykef: I am basing my argument on the simple fact that a beneficial mutation has never been observed in any species throughout human history.

And before someone says "mutations are very rare and only affect a species every million years", let me say that many mutations have been observed that are always detrimental. Mutations can have several effects on an organism. In most cases they are reversed immediately by the affected cell during mitosis, but if the gene that causes mutation reversal is affected, this causes cancer. In rare cases a mutation can occur in gametes (sperm or egg cells) and is passed on to the next generation. Many of the worst genetic diseases affecting humans today are caused by mutations. Well known examples are Down's syndrome, Alzheimer's disease and cystic fibrosis.

So mutations are almost always detrimental to an organism and a species. I will agree that it is possible for a mutation to create new genes, though. But to have a mutation-produced gene actually benefit a species, the gene produced would have to work in harmony with the rest of the body in a similar or better way than the old gene. This is unlikely since any one gene co-ordinates with many other genes to function.
The first recorded mutation that actually created a new gene was when Thomas Hunt Morgan artificially mutated fruit flies to have no pigment in their eyes. This was detrimental as the mutated flies lived shorter lives and showed symptoms of blindness. He also induced several other mutations over many years of constant attempts, but all were observed to be detrimental. Despite the mutations never being beneficial, this result was still seen as evidence for evolution.

I have really written a lot here, so I will conclude by simply saying this: An evolutionary change in a species relies on beneficial mutations occurring and passing from an organism to it's offspring in a species. Mutations that pass on to offspring are very rare. Beneficial mutations have never been observed. Thus it is highly unlikely that the evolution of a species is possible at all.

_________________
SIBHoD.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:57 am
Posts: 2981
Location: Oklahoma City
Biscuithead wrote:
And furrykef: I am basing my argument on the simple fact that a beneficial mutation has never been observed in any species throughout human history.


RESEARCH'D!!

AND MORE RESEARCH'D!!

Here's the relevant excerpt from the first article:

Wikipedia wrote:
A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect. These mutations lead to new versions of proteins that help an organism and its future generations better adapt to changes in their environment. For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes. The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One theory for the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People who had this mutation were able to survive infection thus its frequency in the population increased. It could also explain why this mutation is not found in Africa where the bubonic plague never reached. Newer theory says the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation has been caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.


Now, I will grant you that it's something of a hypothesis that the mutation was favored when the plague/smallpox hit Europe, but whether or not that's true, it appears to be a clear example of a beneficial mutation. So where did you get this "no beneficial mutations" information from?

Another issue is that you can't necessarily see a beneficial mutation with your own eyes. Not every mutation is going to immediately produce an obvious change. That CCR5 gene mutation isn't visible to the eye at all! Even if the mutation does eventually alter the visible form of the species, it won't necessarily happen immediately, and when it does, it won't necessarily be obvious that it was due to a mutation. This stuff could be happening all the time without you even knowing it!

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:06 am
Posts: 966
Location: Locked out....
@second link there: I probably should have said that my argument relates only to multicellular organisms. A mutation in an single celled organism is much more feasible as all the stuff about gene co-ordination and specialised gene activation in certain body areas does not apply.

But the production of multicellular organisms from single cellular organisms thing was interesting, though it was not proven that they were not simply very stable colonies of single celled organisms.
furrykef wrote:
Another issue is that you can't necessarily see a beneficial mutation with your own eyes. Not every mutation is going to immediately produce an obvious change. That CCR5 gene mutation isn't visible to the eye at all! Even if the mutation does eventually alter the visible form of the species, it won't necessarily happen immediately, and when it does, it won't necessarily be obvious that it was due to a mutation. This stuff could be happening all the time without you even knowing it!
And I suppose this will only be answered with time. The entire human genome has recently been mapped out, so any possible unseen beneficial mutations in some people may soon be revealed, if they are there.

_________________
SIBHoD.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:35 am
Posts: 646
Location: Hiding behind a gossip stone
There was this one guy who had an abnormally large number of fingers who did better in math class because he had more fingers to count on.

_________________
G D G G A B C D D D Eb F G G G F Eb F Eb D D C C D Eb D C Bb Bb C D C Bb A A Bb C Eb D D D D D D D

It just so happens I have a webcomic...
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=10852


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:35 am
Posts: 646
Location: Hiding behind a gossip stone
I found his name: Godfrey Hill, of the United Kingdom. He had twelve fingers, which was useful because at the time twelve pennies made a shilling. He also did very well in math class.

_________________
G D G G A B C D D D Eb F G G G F Eb F Eb D D C C D Eb D C Bb Bb C D C Bb A A Bb C Eb D D D D D D D

It just so happens I have a webcomic...
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=10852


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:57 am
Posts: 2981
Location: Oklahoma City
I don't really think that's the sort of beneficial mutation we're looking for...

_________________
404 sig not found


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:18 pm
Posts: 9
Location: Waitin' at the bus stamp
Here's an example of how a seemingly deleterious mutation can have a beneficial effect in certain circumstances. Individuals who have Sickle-cell disease are resistant towards malaria, as their blood cells are not conducive to the malaria causing parasite. Also, if the individual is heterozygous for the mutation, they will not suffer from the disease but still retain the immunity. Therefore, in areas heavily stricken by malaria, carrying the sickle cell gene is actually an advantage. This can be observed through the unusually high number of Africans with the trait, as malaria is still prevalent in most parts of the continent.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:35 am
Posts: 646
Location: Hiding behind a gossip stone
furrykef wrote:
I don't really think that's the sort of beneficial mutation we're looking for...

Why not? It's a mutation with a benefit.

_________________
G D G G A B C D D D Eb F G G G F Eb F Eb D D C C D Eb D C Bb Bb C D C Bb A A Bb C Eb D D D D D D D

It just so happens I have a webcomic...
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=10852


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:57 am
Posts: 2981
Location: Oklahoma City
Yes, but does that benefit aid reproduction in any way? The social stigma of "Eww, he has extra fingers!" can easily offset any advantage that higher intelligence might create. Remember, survival of the fittest is ultimately concerned only with reproductive potential.

Also, we don't know if his math skills were actually due to his extra fingers, and his extra fingers could be inconvenient in other ways. How's the poor guy gonna wear gloves? What's his manual dexterity like? How often do people make fun of him or not take him seriously due to his extra fingers? We don't know enough to judge that this is ultimately beneficial for him.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:35 am
Posts: 646
Location: Hiding behind a gossip stone
He actually got along pretty well socially, too. In the Middle East, he was designated a descendent of Muhammad.

_________________
G D G G A B C D D D Eb F G G G F Eb F Eb D D C C D Eb D C Bb Bb C D C Bb A A Bb C Eb D D D D D D D

It just so happens I have a webcomic...
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=10852


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:06 am
Posts: 966
Location: Locked out....
sdrawkcaB wrote:
Here's an example of how a seemingly deleterious mutation can have a beneficial effect in certain circumstances. Individuals who have Sickle-cell disease are resistant towards malaria, as their blood cells are not conducive to the malaria causing parasite. Also, if the individual is heterozygous for the mutation, they will not suffer from the disease but still retain the immunity. Therefore, in areas heavily stricken by malaria, carrying the sickle cell gene is actually an advantage. This can be observed through the unusually high number of Africans with the trait, as malaria is still prevalent in most parts of the continent.

This question is genuinely out of curiousity, not an attack on the argument:
I assume people with Sickle-cell disease would be immune to malaria because of their abnormally shaped red blood cells not allowing for viral infection of the cell. But you say people heterozygous for the Sickle-cell gene are still immune but do not show symptoms of the disease, ie. anemia.
I assume the heterozygous individuals are not affected by the disease because their cells are in the regular shape, and therefore provide no blockages in capillaries. So why would these regular-shaped cells not be conductive to the malaria virus? Could you post a link to a scientific report on this immunity. I would find that interesting.

_________________
SIBHoD.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:18 pm
Posts: 9
Location: Waitin' at the bus stamp
Done and done. The sickle cell gene is incompletely recessive, so heterozygous individuals have some deformed blood cells in their bodies at all times; not enough to cause symptoms, but enough to provide resistance against malaria.
I should note that different sources interchange "immunity" and "resistance," but it is safe to say that this condition greatly increases an individual's chance of surviving malaria.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:15 am
Posts: 1019
Location: Earth
I wonder if there will ever be a post in this thread that says,

"o yap. ur rite. D-BATE OVAR!"

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:09 am
Posts: 8987
Location: He remembered Socks!
Parlod wrote:
I wonder if there will ever be a post in this thread that says,

"o yap. ur rite. D-BATE OVAR!"

That hasn't happened in any R&P debate ever, and it wont happen now.

We can only pray or evolve.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:26 am
Posts: 3828
Location: I've seen this kind of Pikachu before.
Continued from the "Coming Soon: Movies" thread...

HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
Well, yeah, except, y'know, the theory of evolution has been accepted by the entire scientific community for like, 150 years now but you know, details is details.


I don't really think that matters. What is considered true by the scientific community now is always subject to change - think about continental drift, and the many universe creation theories.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:37 pm
Posts: 2455
Location: oh god how did this get here I am not good with computer
Still, though, there's at least actual scientific evidence to back it up. Intelligent design (creationism in a cheap tuxedo) has none, and expects to be treated with the same validity, despite the separation of church and state and secularism inherent within American founding principles.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:26 am
Posts: 3828
Location: I've seen this kind of Pikachu before.
Yes, there's evidence. You've got to consider that what we know right now is not what we're going to know in the future. Just because we have more evidence for something right now doesn't mean we're not going to find evidence for something else in the future.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:37 pm
Posts: 2455
Location: oh god how did this get here I am not good with computer
Yeah, sort of like how they eventually figured out that the Copernican Theory was false after they shed more light onto the subject of astronomy.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:26 am
Posts: 3828
Location: I've seen this kind of Pikachu before.
exactly

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:01 am
Posts: 6245
Rusty wrote:
Yes, there's evidence.

Explain.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 854 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group